Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 401-06City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report 10 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:NOVEMBER 6, 2006 CMR: 401:06 SUBJECT:1525 ARASTRADERO ROAD [06PLN-0045]:RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF A REQUEST BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR A 13.27-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED WITHIN THE ARASTRADERO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE FROM OPEN SPACE/CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT TO PUBLICLY OWNED CONSERVATION LAND AND FROM AN OPEN SPACE ZONE DESIGNATION TO A PUBLIC FACILITY ZONE DESIGNATION. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: AN INITIAL STUDY HAS BEEN PREPARED AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS PROPOSED ~N ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA GUIDELINES. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City Council adopt the mitigated negative declaration, approve a Resolution adopting a Comprehensive Plan amendment to "Publicly owned Conservation Land" (Attachment A) and adopt an Ordinance to rezone the 13.27-acre parcel to "PF" (Public Facilities) [Attachment B]. BACKGROUND On September 12, 2005, Council approved the purchase of the 13.27-acre Arastradero Gateway property from the Peninsula Open Space Trust and the expenditure of funds from the Budget Stabilization Reserve Fund to finance its acquisition. The purchase of this property to expand open space and recreational opportunities was an objective of the City since 1978 when former mayor Byron Sher attempted to purchase the property from Mrs. Bressler. Numerous subsequent attempts were made to acquire the property from the Bressler family. In 2002, at the urging of the City of Palo Alto, the Peninsula Open Space Trust bought the property at a bankruptcy auction from the Bressler family with the intent Of protecting it from development and providing the City of Palo Alto the opportunity to purchase the property. The purchase of the property from POST was finalized on September 31, 2005. On November 14, 2005, Council adopted an ordinance which dedicated the property as "park land" and as a part of the Arastradero Open Space Preserve, and directed staff to initiate a zone change for the property from an Open Space zone to a Public Facility (PF) zone, in conformance with the surrounding preserve. The specific CMR: 401:06 Page 1 of 3 purpose of the PF zone district is to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Commission reviewed this project at its meeting of September 13, 2006. The Commission recommenced (6-0-1-0) that the Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the requested rezoning and land use designation of the property to PuNic Facility (PF) and publicly owned conservation land. A draft City Council resolution to adopt the requested Comprehensive Plan change to "Pulolicly Owned Conservation Land" is included as Attachment A. A draft City Council ordinance to adopt the requested change to Public Facilities (PF) zoning is included as Attachment B. RESOURCE IMPACT." The operation and maintenance of the property as park land would have a very slight impact on the Open Space operating b.udget and the workload of park rangers. The property is completely surrounded by the Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve and can be easily monitored by rangers from adjoining trails and roads. The increase in operational costs to maintain and patrol the property is estimated at $2,000 annually and will be absorbed by the existing Open Space operating budget. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW’. The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration was available for public review beginning August 23, 2006 through September 12, 2006, and is attached to this staff report (Attachment F). PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CHRIST.RIORDAN Senior lanner Director of Plarming and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~ ~ ’ ,~~" FRANK BENEST City Manager CMR: 401:06 Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Resolution for Approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance for Approval of Rezone to PF Location Map Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) staff September 13, 2006 (without attachments). Draft Minutes of P&TC meeting of September 13, 2006 Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) report dated COURTESY COPIES: Greg Betts, Open Space Division Manager William Fellman, Manager Real Property Richard James, Director of Community Services CMR: 401:06 Page 3 of 3 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~PALO ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO CHANGE THE ZONE DESIGNATION FOR 1525 ARASTRADERO ROAD FROM THE OPEN SPACE (OS)ZONE DESIGNATION TO THE PUBLIC FACILITY (PF)ZONE DESIGNATION The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. The City Council finds as follows: A.The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on September 13, 2006 has recommended that the City Council rezone the approximately 13.27 acre subject site (1525 Arastradero Road) to the Public Facility zone designation. B.The Planning and Transportation Commission has reviewed the facts presented at the public hearing,including public testimony and reports and recommendations from the director of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff. C.The Planning and Transportation Commission find that rezoning, the parcel to Public Facilities zoning is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is recommended to be Publicly Owned Conservation Land. G.The Council has held a duly noti-ced public hearing, on the matter on , and has reviewed the environmental documents prepared for the project and all other relevant information, including staff reports,and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter. SECTION 2. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare require an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in Section 3. SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to place the subject site ( 1525 Arastradero Road), an approximately 13.27 acre site, within the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district. 1 061101 syn 0120153 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 4. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property; therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: St. Deputy City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 061101 syn 0120153 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL .OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 1525 ARASTRADERO ROAD FROM OPEN SPACE/CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT TO PUBLICLY OWNED CONSERVATION LAND WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing on September 13, 2006 recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below; and WHEREAS, upon considerationof said recommendation after duly noticed public hearing, the Council desires to amend said plan as hereinafter set forth; The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION i. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region require amendment of the Land Use M~p of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation of the area depicted in Exhibit A from Open Space/Controlled Development to Publicly Owned Conservation Land. Exhibit A is attached to this resolution and incorporated into it by this reference. // // // // // 061101 syn 0120152 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. The.Council finds that the adoption of this resolution will have no significant adverse environmental impact. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 061101 syn 0120152 2 EXHIBIT A 1525 Arastradero Road EXHIBIT A This map is a product of the City o[ Palo Allo GIS O’293’ The City of Palo Alto ATTACHMENT C 1525 Arastradero Road This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 293’ criorda, 200~08-’14 17:52:39 T~s document is a graphic representation oNy of best evagable sources. Attachment D PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Christopher Riordan Senior Planner DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: September 13, 2006 1525 Arastradero Road [06PLN-00045]: Request by the City of Palo Alto for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.and Rezoning for a 13.27-acre parcel located within the Arastradero Open Space Preserve from Open Space/Cont,:oiled Development to Publicly Owned Conservation Land and from an Open Space zone designation to a Public Facility zone designation. Environmental Assessment: An initial study has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the requested rezoning and land use designation of the 13.27 acre parcel to "PF" (Public Facilities) and "Publicly Owned Conservation Land." SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION: On September 12, 2005, Council approved the purchase of the 13.27-acre Arastradero Gateway property from the Peninsula Open Space Trust and the expenditure of funds from the Budget Stabilization Reserve Fund to finance its acquisition. The purchase of this property to expand open space and recreational opportunities was an objective of the City since 1978 when former mayor Byron Sher attempted to purchase the property from Mrs. Bressler. Numerous subsequent attempts were made to acquire the property from the Bressler family. In 2002, at the urging of the City of Palo Alto, the Peninsula Open Space Trust bought the property at a bankruptcy auction from the Bressler family with the intent of protecting it from development and providing the City of Palo Alto the opportunity to purchase the property. The purchase of the property from POST was finalized on September 31, 2005. City of Palo Alto Page 1 On November 14, 2005, the Council adopted (9-0) an ordinance dedicating the property as park land and as a part of the Arastradero Open Space Preserve. The Council also directed staff to initiate a zone change for the acquired property from an Open Space zone to a Public Facility (PF) designation, in conformance with the surrounding preserve. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES: Comprehensive Plan Findings for a Comprehensive amendment are set forth in PAMC Chapter 19: 1. "When changed conditions or further studies by the commission require, the commission may amend, extend, or add to all or part of the master or general plan... [Section 65505]" 2. "When it deems it to be for the public interest, the legislative body may change or add to all or part of an adopted master or general plan. [Section 65511]" Attachment A, included with this report, is a draft City Council resolution to adopt the requested Comprehensive Plan change to "Publicly Owned Conservation Land". Zone Change Attachment B, included with this report, is a draft City Council Ordinance to adopt the requested change to Public Facilities (PF) zoning. RESOURCE IMPACT: The operation and maintenance of the property as park land would have a very slight impact on the Open Space operating budget or the workload of park rangers. The property is completely surrounded by the Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve and can be easily monitored by rangers from adjoining trails and roads. The increase in operational costs to maintain and patrol the property is estimated at $2,000 annually and will be absorbed by the Open Space operating budget. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration was available for public review beginning August, 23 2006 through September 12, 2006, and is attached to this staff report (Attachment D). ATTACHMENTS: A.Resolution for Approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment (will be provided at places) B.Ordinance for Approval of Rezone to PF (will be provided at places) C.Location Map D.Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Palo Alto Page 2 COURTESY COPIES: Greg Betts, Open Space Division Manager William Fellman, Manager Real Property Richard James, Director of Community Services Prepared by:Christopher A. Riordan, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning Department/Division Head Approval: Curtis Williams, AICP Chief Planning and Transportation Official City of Palo Alto Page 3 Attachment E Draft Minutes Planning and Transportation Commission September 13, 2006 1525 Arastradero Road [06PLN-00045|: Request by the City of Palo Alto for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning of a 13.27-acre parcel located within the Arastradero Open Space Preserve from Open Space/Controlled Development to Publicly Owned Conservation Land and from an Open Space zone designation to a PuNic Facility zone designation. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zone District: OS. Mr. Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner: Good evening. I just have some extremely brief comments. On September 12, 2005 the City Council approved the purchase of the subject property from the Peninsula Open Space Trust. On November 14, 2005 the Council adopted an ordinance dedicating the property as parkland and part of the Arastradero Open Space Preserve. The Council also directed Staff at that time to initiate a zone change for the acquired property from Open Space zone to a Public Facility (PF) designation in accordance with the zoning preserve. Attachment A, which you have at places, and I apologize was not included in the Staff Report, is a draft City Council resolution to adopt the request Comprehensive Plan change of publicly owned conservation land and Attachment B also at your places is a draft City Council ordinance to adopt the requested change to PF zoning. An Environmental Impact Assessment as mentioned was prepared for the project, which identified the site as being archeologically sensitive and that there is the possibility that Native American resources could exist on site: If the ground is disturbed and Native American resources are discovered the project includes mitigations that would reduce these effects to a less than significant level. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. Staff has received some questions regarding the types of ground disturbance that can be expected to occur on the site and Greg Betts from Community Services is present this evening to address this topic. So in conclusion Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the requested rezoning and land use designation to pF, Publicly Owned Conservation Land. Thank you. Chair Holman: Are there any other questions for Staff by the Commission? Are there any members of the public who would like to speak to this item? Do we have another presentation by Staff or are you just here and available to answer questions? Mr. Greg Betts, Open Space Division Manager: Good evening members of the Commission. I am just here to answer questions. I would like to point out that this parcel is the fourth parcel to make up the EnidPierson Arastradero Preserve. This parcel is completely contiguous and surrounded by the other three parcels that make up the now 62.2-acre open space preserve. Inpurchasing this property we obtained six different grants including a land and water conservation grant from the federal government that required historic assessment of the property. As a result we hired Dr. Lawrence Desmond, a local archeologist, to do an assessment onsite. He was very thorough in poking around the property and actually giving us guidelines for the use of the property or for any soil disturbance. We also received grants from both Santa Clara County and the State of California and the Coastal Conservancy so in addition to the park preservation ordinance that applies to this property there is additional three conservation easements that are attached to the title of the property to assure that this property will only be used for conservation and recreation purposes. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have. Chair Holman: Thank you. Are there any questions? Seeing none, any discussion? Do I have a motion? Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: Actually Commissioner Lippert was about to speak. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. MOTION Vice-Chair Lippert: I move to go with the Staff recommendation here. SECOND Commissioner Sandas: Second. Chair Holman: Motion made by Commissioner Lippert and seconded by Commissioner Sandas. Would you care to speak to your motion, Commissioner Lippert? Vice-Chair Lippert: I just think that this is a piece of the puzzle that we have been waiting for for a very, very, very long time. I remember reviewing the interpretive center across the street, which by the way is a sustainable straw bail building built in the preserve there, when I was on the Architectural Review Board. I think it is a wonderful project and that whole open space is just a wonderful place to be. It is great to be able to finally have it as a part of the Public Open Space. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: I agree. I am very enthusiastic about open space. As a member of the Palo Alto community I am very happy that we now can rename this zone PF. I think it is terrific. I hike at Arastradero Preserve a lot, jump over rattlesnakes and all kinds of stuff. I am just glad to have the last piece of the puzzle stuck in. Chair Holman: Any other comments? Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I just want to thank Mr. Betts for his usual thoroughness and his presentation nicely done. Thank you for your work on this. Chair Holman: I would add not just the presentation but agreed the work and research and effort that went into this to be thorough. I had just a couple of things to put out there as considerations. When I had asked about what kinds of projects could take place here that might disturb the archeological resources I was told that one might be tilling if there were weeds. It might be mowing it might be tilling. I would hope that we would reconsider how we would address those issues of growth eradication. The other is a question of clarification so I am hoping that Council will hear that. The other comment is if there was a structure proposed for this we already have an interpretive center but if there were any kind of structure proposed for this it would come to Parks and Recreation for review. Would it go to any other body? Mr. Betts: Yes Chairman. The two things that should be mentioned by Council policy the Pierson Arastradero Preserve is a bit unique. It was designated in 1983 when it was opened to the public as a low-use, low-intensity park, which sometimes doesn’t jive with the number of users there. But it was specifically intended not to have picnic areas or campgrounds or even park benches like Foothills Park or to duplicate other park uses. To that issue when the gateway facility was designed City Council was very specific that that facility should be no more than 1,100 square feet and should not again replace the type of uses at the Baylands Interpretive Center or the Foothills Park Interpretive Center. The decision was also made not to expand the parking lot because the parking lot really is one of the factors that help to limit the use of the preserve and I should say the over-use of the preserve as well. When the gateway facility was considered the architect looked at four different possible sites. We have a project that was funded by the State of California as riparian restoration project. There is a concrete culvert that goes through the property that was put in we believe in the 1930s or 1940s when the property was created as a stable. That dissects the property when the process of taking out parts of that culvert to reestablish an ephemeral stream as habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog and the Tiger Salamander. We have no plans for any development on the property. Chair Holman: Any other pads or formal pads might be considered there? Mr. Betts: No there is not. One of the concerns that we ultimately have is perhaps you know the Pierson Arastradero Preserve provides an important link in the bay to ridge trail. A trail currently goes past the new gateway facility and Arastradero Lake and continues through Foothills Park. The only consideration is we do have a trail master plan that does not identify any additional trails on the preserve to the existing 10.5 miles of trails. If there were some way to enhance handicapped accessibility to Arastradero Lake by using a more curvy-linear pathway we might consider that, however, we have no plans until the trail master plan is reevaluated in about five years. Chair Holman: You do good work. So I am happy to support the motion with my one comment about hopefully there will be reconsideration of rototilling should that ever be a thought to go that direction. With that if there are no other comments or questions I will call the motion. MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0, Commissioner Keller absent) The motion to recommend Staff recommendation that we recommend to the City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the requested rezoning and land use designation of the 13.27 acre parcel to Public Facility (PF) and publicly owned conservation land. All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That also passes on a six to zero vote with Commissioner Keller absent. Thank you very much Mr. Betts and Mr. Riordan. Attachment F ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 1.Project Title:Zone change from Open Space (OS) to Public Facility (PF) and a comprehensive plan amendment from Open Space/Controlled Development to Publicly Owned Conservation Land for a property located at 1525 Arastradero Road. Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 3.Contact Person and Phone Number:Christopher A. Riordan, AICP 650/329-2149 4.Project Location:1525 Arastradero Road (APN 182-33-014) 5.Application Number(s):06PLN-00045 Project Sponsor Name and Address:Greg Betts, Open Space Division Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 7.Property Owner:City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 8.General Plan Designation:Open Space/Controlled Development 9.Zoning:OS (Open Space) 10o Project Description: On September 12, 2005, the City Council approved the purchase of the 13.27 -acre Arastradero Gateway property ~om the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST). The intent of the purchase was to add the property to the City’s Arastradero Open Space Preserve and to continue to protect the property and conserve the property as open space, consistent with the surrounding preserve. The property is currently zoned OS with an Open Space/Controlled Development Comprehensive Plan Designation. The project will rezone the property to Public Facility (PF) and change the Comprehensive Plan Designation to Publicly Owned Conservation Land consistent with surrounding Arastradero Open Space Preserve. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The parcel is a shallow valley with a seasonal stream through its entire length. The north boundary is Arastradero Road, the south boundary is a range of low hills that trend in a east-west direction, the east end is near Arastradero Creek which flows northward through the Arastradero Preserve, and then flows eastward where it joins the unnamed seasonal stream that flows though the parcel, and the west end (narrow and cone shaped) is about 2,300 feet from the east property. 12.Other public agencies whose approval is required: None 13.Date Prepared: August 14, 2006 14.Public Review Period: August 23, 2006 to September 12, 2006 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected.by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population!Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance None DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact~’ or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP Project Planner X Steve Emslie, AICP Director of Planning & Community Environment Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 2) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project Will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) 4) 5) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a)Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c)Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7)Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8)This is only a suggestedform, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9)The explanation of each issue should identify: a)The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b)The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 3 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact N0 Impact I.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista?1, 2 X b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not 1, 2 X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 1, 2 X quality of the site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which 1 X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 1) 2) 3) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1,2 X X X III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 1, 2 X air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 1, 2 to an existing or projected air quality violation?X c)1,2 X ~) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors (residential, school) to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1,2 X 4 Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number 1, 2 X of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)X b) c) d) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-l) X X X e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1, 2, 3 X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 1,2 X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,(N-l) or other approved local, regional or state conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse c~ange in the significance of an 1, 2 X historical resource pursuant to 15064.5?(L-7),6 b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1, 2,6 X archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1, 2,6 X resource or site or unique geologic feature? Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than NoIssues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside 1, 2 X of formal cemeteries?(L-8),6 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i)2, 5 XRupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) c) ~) e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 2 (N-5, N-10), 4 2 (N-5, N-8, N- 10), 4 2 2 (N-S), 4 5), 4 n/a X X VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,2 X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources b) c) d) e) h) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile (1,320’) of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources 1,2 1,2 1,2 n/a n/a 1,2 (N- 7) 1,2 (N-7) Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X X X X X X VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1, 2 X requirements? b)XSubstantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1,2 (N-2) c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or’ river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1,2 X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or SOUFCeS 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 1, 2 X capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?1, 2 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped n/a X on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 1, 2 X would impede or redirect flood flows?(N-6) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury 1, 2 X or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the (N-8) failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?1, 2 X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?1, 2 X b)1, 2, 3 XConflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1,2Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? c) 2 X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources B Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) b) c) d) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1,2 1,2 1,2 n/a Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would n/a X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)1, 2 X b) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? n/a X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the n/a X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public facilities? 1 1 1,2 1,2 2 Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X XIV. RECREATION a)1,2Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the n/a X construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a)XCause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 1,2 na b) e) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X X 10 Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,1, 3 X sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access?2 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?1, 2, 3 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 1, 2 X alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)Exceedwastewater treatment requirements of the 1, 2 X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)1, 2 X c) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1,2 1,2 1,2 X X X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1, 2 X afcommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal~ state, and local statutes and regulations 1, 2 X related to solid waste? 11 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 7a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? SOURCE REFERENCES: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Site visit, planner’s knowledge of project. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 & Maps L-7, L-8, L-9, N-l, N-2, N-3, N-5, N-6, N-8, N-10, T-7, T-8 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) and Title 16 (Building Regulations) Uniform Building Code (UBC) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Cultural Resources Report, prepared by Bryan Much, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University Answers substantiated through the responses provided in items I-XVI of this environmental checklist. X X X ATTACHMENTS: A.Site Location Map B.Cultural Resources Report, prepared by Bryan Much, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University 12 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I. Aesthetics The approximately 13 acre site is vacant. A wooden gate faces Arastradero Road and a partially paved road leads to the site of a house that was removed in 1985 after being damaged by a fare. The gate is about 550 feet west of the eastern boundary of the site and lined with fruit and nut trees. The site is covered with native grasses. The project is limited to rezoning the property fxom Open Space (OS) to Public Facility (PF) and no physical changes to the site are proposed that could alter the present aesthetics of the site. Mitigation Measure:None Residual Impact:None II. Agriculture Resources The site is not located in a Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. A copy of this map is included as Attachment B. The site is not zoned for agricultural uses. The Williamson Act does not regulate the site. Mitigation Measures: None Residual Impact: None III. Air Quality The project will involve no physical changes to the site that could have an affect on air quality. Mitigation Measures:None required Residual Impact:None IV. Biological Resources The Natural Resource Area Map (N-l) located in the Comprehensive Plan identifies the probable presence of the American Kestrel, Northern Harrier, and the Sharp Shinned Hawk species of birds on the project site. There are no physical changes proposed for the site that could affect these bird species. Protected trees present on the site would not be affected bythe rezoning. The rezoning of the site will not involve any construction so the project will not have any effect on any biological resources. Mitigation Measures: Residual Impact: None required None " V. Cultural Resources The project site is located in an area of moderate sensitivity, as indicated in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Map L-8), 1998-2010. The Report of a Cultural Resources Inventory at 1525 Arastradero Road prepared in 2004 This report, prepared by Lawrence Desmond in 2004, identifies the high probability that prehistoric or historic cultural resources are located on the parcel. The following are excerpts from the report. The complete report is included as Attachment A. The site is presently vacant but historically contained a single family home and associated other buildings until they were previously destroyed by a wildland fire. There is considerable disturbance to the soils throughout the parcel but especially in the vicinity of the former residence. A partially paved road leads to the former site of the residence. The report did not identify the presence of household or farm implements on the site as the report notes that their through removal is evidenced by site disturbances caused by heavy equipment that removed all debris and foundations which also scraped up "a few" inches of surface soil. There still exists a well constructed stone terracing system that begins near the southeast boundary of the parcel, built on the base of the hillside for at least 350 feet to the west. The report notes that these terraces were most likely built for a garden that was likely planted circa 1930-1940 and it was associated with the residence that was located nearby. Some of the terraces are half circle in shape and 13 extend out 20-30 feet from the hillside while others are linear and follow the curvature of the hillside. These terraces are accessed by a number of stone stairways. The report does note that this is an important historic feature. The residence utilized a septic system for waste water disposal. A sanitary sewer pipeline was constructed through the property after the residence was constructed but never hooked up to the pipeline. The pipeline commences at the west end of the parcel near Arastradero Road and runs west to east through the center of the parcel. The report notes that the construction of the pipeline required considerable excavation in its vicinity and any existing Native American resources were seriously impacted or destroyed. No evidence of privies or refuse pits was identified on the site; however their presence could be obscured by ground cover. The report notes that any construction on the site which removed any topsoil would quickly identify the presence of privies or refuse pits if they were to exist. Additional site disturbance includes leveling of the soil on the southern border of the parcel for either a garden or the construction of a building and a fenced-in, slightly raised, oval corral located in the central section of the parcel about 600 feet from the eastern boundary. R is also known that the previous owners allowed the dumping of construction debris and soil on the parcel. The report states that the parcel is situated in a very archaeologically sensitive area due to its proximity to Arastradero Creek, a source of fresh drinking water, and the many oaks and edible plants in the vicinity would have allowed the area to be used for permanent habitation or food processing by Native Americans. Physical surface evidence of such presence was not located on the site and, if it existed, was most likely removed by the construction of the sanitary sewer line, landscaping, fanning, or collected and removed from the site over the past 200 years by past residents and visitors. The report does state the high probability that Native American resources such as habitation sites, burials, and associated artifact are located deeper under the surface and would be quickly exposed by mechanical excavation. The important historic-period resource is the extensive stone terracing built on the south hillside of the parcel and it should be protected. The project impact to cultural resources will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by incorporating data recovery studies and recovery measures. Mitigation Measures: Prior to the start of any project that would involve the disturbance of soil below the surface, project personnel directly involved with subsurface construction will be advised of the potential for buried culturalresources through sensitivity training. The construction crews will be advised of the following: ¯the types of materials qualifying as inadvertent discoveries; ¯the protocols and contact regarding the protection of inadvertent discoveries; and ¯the need to treat any human skeletal remains that are encountered with dignity and respect~ If any of the following items are encountered, work must be halted, and work cannot resume until the discovery has been properly treated by a qualified archaeologist. Inadvertent finds may include: ~Human Remains ¯Concentrations of rock, ash, animal bone or shell; ¯Earth containing a dark, almost black or very black brown soil often containing charcoal; ¯Easily crumbled dark gray-brown soil with abundant shell fragments, animal bone, charcoal and artifacts such as shell beads, mortars, pestles, arrowheads, bone tools, etc.; ¯Concentrations of artifacts such and stone bowls, arrowheads, bone tools, shell beads, etc.; ¯Deposits containing large amounts of shell; and, ¯Deposits containing glass bottles, metal, old cans or other obvious trash dumps (note: single bottles, modern aluminum cans or beer bottles are not considered significant finds). If during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. 14 The Director of Planning and Community Environment will decide the significance of an archaeological discovery and necessary mitigation measures. Residual Impact: None VI. Geology and Soils The entire state of C~lifornia is in a seismically active area and the site is located in a seismic risk area, subject to surface rupture along fault traces and the potential for earthquake-induced landslides where sloped. There are no structures proposed for the site that could potentially be damaged by seismic activity. Mitigation Measures:None required Residual Impact:None VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project site is designated as a high fire hazard as depicted on N-7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. It is locatedwithin the Arastradero Preserve that includes both high and medium level fire hazard areas. There are no buildings proposed for the site that could be damaged by fire. Visitors to the site would face the same fire hazards as the rest of the Arastradero Preserve. Mitigation Measures:None require.d Residual Impact:None VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality The site is not located in a flood hazard zone. The project would not include any grading that could affect the site existing drainage patterns. It is not anticipated that the project will have any affects on hydrology or water quality. Mitigation Measures:None required Residual Impact:None IX. Land Use and Planning The project will add the property to the City’s Arastradero Open Space Preserve and to enable the city to continue to protect and conserve the property as open space, consistent with the surrounding preserve. The property is currently zoned OS with an Open Space/Controlled Development Comprehensive Plan Designation. The project will rezone the property to Public Facility (PF) and change the Comprehensive Plan Designation to Publicly Owned Conservation Land consistent with surrounding Arastradero Open Space Preserve. Mitigation Measures:None required Residual Impact:None X. Mineral Resources The California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG), has classified the City of Palo Alto as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication in the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto. Mitigation Measures:None required Residual Impact:None 15 XI. Noise The project will not include any physical changes to the site that could generate noise. The project site is not located within any public or private airport zone. Mitigation Measures: None required Residual Impact: None XII.Population and Housing The project will only include the rezoning the parcel from Open Space to Public Facilities. Housing is not a permitted use in the Public Facilities Zone District. Mitigation Measures: None required Residual Impact: . None XIII. Public Services Fire The site is located in a high fire hazard area. The Fire Department provides fire protection services to the site. The project would not include the construction of any structures that would increase the responsibility of the fire department. Police The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The project would not by itself result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities. Mitigation Measures:None required Residual Impact:None XIV. Recreation The project would add approximately 13 acres to the Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve and would increase the recreational opportunities for local citizens. Mitigation Measures:None required Residual Impact:None XV.Transportation/Traffic Primary vehicular access to the site is provided by Arastradero Road. An existing parking lot across the street from the site provides vehicular parking for the public. The site is already accessible to the public so the rezoning of the site would not inc)ease the vehicular trips. Mitigation Measures:None required Residual Impact:None XVI. Utilities and Service Systems The rezoning of the project from Open Space to Public Facility would not necessitate the installation of any utilities. Mitigation Measures:None required Residual Impact:None i6 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultm’al or historic resources. The rezoling of the site would not result in any adverse visual impact. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or enviromnental impacts. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS INITIAL EVALUATION/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY I~qOWN AS QUARRY ROAD SUBSTATION CAPACITY INCREASE, 281 QUARRY ROAD PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA. AJmlt’s~gnat~’e Mitigation Measures: Prior to the start of any project that would involve the disturbance of soil below the surface, project personnel directly involved with subsurface construction will be advised of the potential for buried cultural resources through sensitivity training. The construction crews will be advised of the following: ¯the types of materials qualifying as inadvertent discoveries; ¯the protocols and contact regarding the protection of inadvertent discoveries; and the need to treat any human skeletal remains that are encountered with dignity and respect. If any of the following items are encountered, work must be halted, and work cannot resume until the discovery has been properly treated by a qualified archaeologist. Inadvertent finds may include: ¯Human Remains ¯Concentrations of rock, ash, animal bone or shell; ¯Earth containing a dark, almost black or very black brown soil often containing.charcoal; ¯Easily crumbled dark gray-brown soil with abundant shell fragments, animal bone, charcoal and artifacts such as shell beads, mortars, pestles, arrowheads, bone tools, etc.; ¯Concentrations of artifacts such and stone bowls, arrowheads, bone tools, shell beads, etc.; ¯Deposits containing large amounts of shell; and, ¯Deposits containing glass bottles, metal, old cans or other obvious trash dumps (note: single bottles, modern aluminum cans or beer bottles are not considered significant finds). If during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. The Director of Planning and Community Environment will decide the significance of an archaeological discovery and necessary nfitigation measures. 17