HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-24 City Council (3)TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report11
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:NOVEMBER 24, 2003 CMR:525:03
SUBJECT:ADOPTION OF THE BICYCLE TRANPORTATION PLAN AND
ADDENDUM TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Resolution 1) certifying the
Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as the environmental document
for the Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2) certifying the Addendum to the EIR and restating the
statement of overriding consideration contained in the EIR, and 3) amending the 1998-2010
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by adopting the 2003 Palo Alto Bicycle
Transportation Plan.
BACKGROUND
On May 19, 2003 the City Council unanimously approved in concept the 2003 Palo Alto
Bicycle Transportation Plan and directed staff to prepare final environmental documents and
a resolution, and to return to the City Council for final approval of the Bicycle
Transportation Plan as a consent calendar item. Incorporated into the motion were two
amendments to: 1) prioritize implementation of the bike boulevard network, and 2) to return
to Council with an achievable milestone in the Council’s Top 5 priorities related to the
implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan in the next two years. Copies of the staff report
and minutes from the Council meeting are attached (Attachments C and D).
DISCUSSION
In response to the first amendment, the Council approved $50,000 as part of the funding for
the 2003-04 Capital Improvement Program budget, for implementation of the bicycle
boulevard network (Project PL-04010: Bicycle Boulevards Implementation Project). This
project funds the design and construction of physical changes to local and collector streets to
implement a network of bicycle boulevards identified as high priority projects in the Bicycle
Transportation Plan. These eight bike boulevards are: E1 Camino Way/Maybell/Donald
Drive; Homer Avenue; Matadero Avenue/Margarita Avenue; Castilleja/Park Boulevard!
CMR:525:03 Page 1 of 3
Wilkie Way; Everett Avenue/Palo Alto Avenue; Chaucer/Boyce/Melville and the extension
of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard. In FY 2003-04, this funding will be used to develop
and implement the bicycle concept for E1 Camino Way/Maybell/Donald, a school commute
corridor to the new Terman Middle School; as well as interim bicycle circulation
improvements on the first block of Homer Avenue between Alma and High Street, leading
to the new Homer Undercrossing.
With regard to the second amendment, staff has included the following milestone in the
Council’s Top 5 priority list: Complete the design of the E1 Camino Way/Maybell
Avenue/Donald Drive bicycle boulevard and the interim bicycle circulation improvements
on the first block of the Homer Avenue between Alma and High Street, leading to the new
Homer Undercrossing. (CIP PL04010). The estimated completion date is June 2004.
RESOURCE IMPACT
On October 7, 2003, Council approved the Bike Boulevard Network as one of two projects
Palo Alto submitted to the VTA for inclusion in the VTA Local Streets and County Roads
(LS&CR) Fund Program (CMR:454:03). The VTA will develop a priority list of projects
that will be eligible for future grant funding. This program would fund up to 80 percent of
projects included in the 10-year program. The estimated cost of the bike boulevard network
is $750,000, $600,000 of which would be funded through federal and state grants. A local
match of $150,000 would be obtained from proceeds of the prospective citywide
transportation impact fee.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Bicycle Transportation Plan is consistent with, and implements existing City policy,
contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Palo Alto Transportation Goal T-3, Facilities,
services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling, and, Program T-
22, "Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of the southern end of
the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard to Mountain View."
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the 1998-2010 Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan discussed the impacts related to the development of bicycle
improvements. The improvements and programs included in the Bicycle Transportation
Plan are consistent with those identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Council adopted a
statement of overriding considerations, finding that the unavoidable environmental impacts
of the project were acceptable when balanced against the benefits, even after giving greater
weight to the City’s duty to avoid the enviromnental impacts and protect the environment to
the maximum extent feasible. One of the factors and public benefits identified in the Final
EIR for the project was: "that the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan update will
reduce the reliance on the automobile by encouraging the development of more housing
near transit, reducing the emphasis on traffic improvements in favor of pedestrian and
CMR:525:03 Page 2 of 3
bicycle improvements, choosing limitations so continuous roa&vay system capacity
increases, and providing a land use pattern less dependent on the automobile."
Staff has reviewed the potential impacts of the Bicycle Transportation Plan and compared
them to the environmental analysis completed in the Comprehensive Plan EIR and
concluded that the differences are considered minor under CEQA. An Addendum to the
Comprehensive Plan EIR for the Bicycle Transportation Plan has been prepared. The
Addendum found that there were no additional significant impacts associated with the
Bicycle Transportation Plan, other than those discussed in the Comprehensive Plan EIR, and
that the Bicycle Transportation Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan EIR findings
and the statement of overriding considerations adopted by the City Council on July 20,
1998.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report
B. Resolution (Limited Distribution of Bicycle Transportation Plan as Exhibit B to
Resolution. Plan may be viewed on the City’s website at ~.~,~v.cityofpaloalto.or~ibike
or in the Transportation Division Office)
C. May 19 2003 Staff Report (CMR:281:03, Bicycle Transportation Plan), without
attachments
D. Minutes of May 19, 2003 City Council Meeting
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
~-’~ansp°rtati°n~Pr°jects Manager
STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Assistant City Manager
cc:Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
City/School Traffic Safety Committee
CMR:525:03 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
ADDENDUM TO AN EIR
USE OF A FINAL EIR PREPARED FOR A PROGRAM EIR
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palo Alto has prepared an
Addendum to an Enviromnental Impact Report (EIR) because changes made to the
project that are described below are considered minor under CEQA; they do not raise
important new issues about the significant impacts on the environment. None of the
conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a
subsequent EI2~ have occurred.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is an amendment to the Transportation Element of the City of Palo
Alto’s Comprehensive Plan. The Bicycle Transportation Plan builds upon the bicycle
transportation policies of the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Plan
assesses the strengths and deficiencies of the existing Palo Alto bikeway system and
identifies bicycle facility needs for the future, at least through the 2010 horizon of the
current Comprehensive Plan. The plan responds to the specific Comprehensive Plan
bicycle transportation programs that include:
Program T-18: Develop and periodically update a comprehensive bicycle plan
Prod’am T-19: Develop, periodically
improvement program.., and prioritize
school, retail centers and civic facilities.
update, and implement, a bicycle facilities
critical pedestrian and bicycle links to parks,
Prod’am T-21: Study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Ahna
Street and the Caltrain tracks and implement if feasibIe.
Program T-22: Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of the
southern end of the B~yant Street bicycle boulevard to Mountain View.
Prod’am T-23: Develop public sidewalks and bicycle facilities in Stanford Research
Park and other employment areas.
The proposed expanded bikeway network includes a range of facilities to serve the needs
of cyclists of all ages and abilities, including commuters, students, recreational riders, and
casual cyclists. The plan builds upon the existing core of on-street and off-street
bikeways. The proposed network includes bike facilities on the hierarchy of streets in
Palo Alto, including local neighborhood streets, collector streets, arterials and
expressways, as well as off-road bike paths.
The Plan (See Figure 6) proposes doubling the number of miles of bikeways (bike paths,
bike lanes and bike routes). If fully implemented, the recommended bikeway network
would consist of 12 miles of off-road bike paths and trails, and 76 miles of on-road bike
lanes and bike routes. Key features of the plan are the expansion of the network of
bicycle boulevards (from current 3 miles to a total of 12 miles, and 7 new or improved
bicycle undercrossings or bridges at barriers to bicycle travel (e.g., creeks, railroad tracks,
etc.).
Other key elements of the plan include a recommended best practices guide and new
policies and programs to enhance the City’s existing bicycle goals and policies and an
implementation plan. The Implementation Plan includes the recommended bikeway
network, a bicycle facilities improvement priority list, and documentation of the existing
and recommended policies, procedures and programs and best practices to support
bicycle transportation.
The recommended bikeway improvements were rated using criteria based on safety,
connectivity and special significance. Using a numerical scoring system each project was
ranked either high medium or low priority. All of the high priority projects were
included in classified, but unranked order, in Table 6-3 of the Plan.
The Implementation Plan also includes a detailed list of action steps to implement
existing bicycle programs and policies already designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
These action steps both document existing and proposed practices for bikeway facilities
design and maintenance, education, enforcement and outreach promotion.
The environmental impacts of this project were addressed by a final EIR entitled "1998-
2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update EIR", and findings were adopted by City
Council Resolution 7780 on July 20, 1998. Specifically, the following impacts were
reviewed and found to be adequately considered by the EI~:
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Geology and Soils
Hydrology and Water Quality
Noise
Public Services
Transportation]Traffic
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
The attached Initial Study environmental analysis (Attachment A) completed for this
project evaluates and compares each of the aforementioned impact categories as
discussed in the Final EIR in conjunction with the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
1.Project Title: Draft Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Palo Alto Transportation Division,
P.O.Box 10250, Palo Alto CA 94303
Contact Person and Phone Number: Gayle Likens, Transportation Projects Manager
(650) 329-2136
4.Project Location: City of Palo Alto
5.Application Number(s): NA
6.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Palo Alto
7.General Plan Designation: NA
8.Zoning: NA
Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not
limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site
features necessary for its implementation. (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
Palo Alto is a community of approximately 26 square miles and 61,000 residents, 35
miles south of San Francisco on the Peninsula. In the early 1970s, Palo Alto was one of
the first cities to develop and implement a comprehensive network of on-street bike
lanes and bike routes. Palo Alto has subsequently gained the reputation of a bicycle
friendly community due to the extensive bikeway system, strong bicycle ridership,
innovative programs and policies in support of bicycling as an important transportation
mode.
The City has approximately 35 miles of designated bike lanes and bike routes and 8
miles of off-road bike paths including the regional Bay Trail, 11 bicycle underpasses and
bridges, a limited number of designated bike routes and one bicycle boulevard.
H:kA-LLDATAkBIKEPLANIENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 1 of 25
In 1999, the City embarked upon a project, to develop a comprehensive bicycle
transportation plan that addressed the following broad objectives:
¯to serve bicyclists of all levels and abilities
¯to improve safety
¯to improve connectivity and eliminate gaps
¯to improve intermodal connectivity
¯create the opportunity to reduce auto dependency
The Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan is the culmination of over two years of work by
staff and the consultant, in cooperation with the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
and members of the community. The study process included extensive community
input from stakeholder groups including the Chamber of Commerce, PAUSD, the PTA,
as well as meetings with other local agency representatives, direct input from cyclists at
local bike shops, a community workshop and public hearing process.
The purpose of this project is to produce a Bicycle Transportation Plan for the City of
Palo Alto that builds upon the bicycle transportation policies of the 1998-2010 Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. The project assesses the strengths and deficiencies of the
existing Palo Alto bikeway system and identifies bicycle facility needs for the future, at
least through the 2010 horizon of the current Comprehensive Plan.
The plan responds to the specific Comprehensive Plan bicycle transportation programs
that include:
Program T-19: Develop and periodically update a comprehensive bicycle plan_ and to
_develop, periodically update, and implement, a bicycle facilities improvement program...
and prioritize critical pedestrian and bicycle links to parks, school, retail centers and civic
facilities.
Program T-21: Study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under
Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and implement if feasible.
Program T-22: Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of the
southern end of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard to Mountain View.
Program T-23: Develop public sidewalks and bicycle facilities in Stanford Research
Park and other employment areas.
The draft Plan includes six chapters: Introduction, Existing Conditions, Needs
Assessment and Analysis, Recommended Bikeway Network, Bicycle Support Facilities
and Programs and Implementation Plan.
Recommended Bikeway Network
The Plan (See Figure 6) proposes doubling the number of miles of bikeways (bike paths,
bike lanes and bike routes). If fully implemented, the recommended bikeway network
would consist of 12 miles of off-road bike paths and trails, and 76 miles of on-road bike
lanes and bike routes. Key features of the plan are the expansion of the network of
bicycle boulevards (from current 3 miles to a total of 12 miles, and 7 new or improved
H:LALLDATA~BIKEPLAN~ENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 2 of 25
bicycle undercrossings or bridges at barriers to bicycle travel (e.g., creeks, railroad
tracks, etc.).
The proposed expanded bikeway network includes a range of facilities to serve the
needs of cyclists of all ages and abilities, including commuters, students, recreational
riders, and casual cyclists. The plan builds upon the existing core of on-street and off-
street bikeways. As stated in the Plan, "bicyclists vary in skill and in their willingness to
ride in traffic, ranging from experienced adult cyclists who will rider on any street, to
casual adults cyclists or novice cyclists who are intimidated by high traffic volumes
and/or high speeds, to child cyclists." Consequently, the proposed network includes bike
facilities on the hierarchy of streets in Palo Alto, including local neighborhood streets,
collector streets, arterials and expressways, as well as off-road bike paths.
This network responds to community priorities as identified during the study process,
which included expansion of the bike boulevard network, improved safe bike routes to
schools, removing obstacles to travel with new bridges and undercrossings, and spot
improvements at problematic intersections. The existing bikeway network is largely
oriented in a north/south configuration, with far fewer east/west facilities, a deficiency in
the system, which was identified early "during the study. The proposed network creates
new east/west cross-town routes in both north and south Palo Alto (Everett, Homer,
Matadero/Margarita, and Maybell/Donald), and new grade separated crossings of
Highway 101 and the Caltrain right-of-way.
Network of Bicycle Boulevards
Since 1976, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan has advocated for the development of "a
network of bicycle boulevards," but to date only the 3-mile long Bryant Street Bicycle
Boulevard has been implemented. The Plan recommends quadrupling the number of
miles of bike boulevards to 12 miles, on up to 8 new bike boulevards on local and
collector streets: Homer Avenue, Matadero Avenue, Greet Road, Park Boulevard,
Everett Street, Ross Road, Maybell Avenue and the Melville/Guinda route. These bike
boulevards were largely designed to improve bike safety for students commuting to Palo
Alto elementary, middle and high schools.
Bike Lanes on Arterial Streets
Four of the City’s five residential arterials (University, Middlefield, Charleston and
Arastradero) currently include segments of bike lanes. The Bicycle Plan recommends
completing the bike lane network on the remaining two residential arterials, Middlefield
Road and Embarcadero Road. The Plan also recommends bikeway improvements on
the City’s other non-residential major arterial streets. Some of these improvements
would be considered long-term goals, and would require the cooperation of other
agencies, including Santa Clara County and Caltrans, for those arterials under their
respective jurisdictions.
Other key elements of the plan include a recommended best practices guide and new
policies and programs to enhance the City’s existing bicycle goals and policies.
Emphasis is placed on the need for the role of education and encouragement programs
in the City’s promotion of safe bicycling.
H:kALLDATALBIKEPLANkENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 3 of 25
Implementation Plan
The Implementation Plan includes the recommended bikeway network, a bicycle
facilities improvement priority list, and documentation of the existing and recommended
policies, procedures and programs and best practices to support bicycle transportation.
The recommended bikeway improvements were rated using criteria based on safety,
connectivity and special significance. Using a numerical scoring system each project
was ranked either high medium or low priority. All of the high priority projects were
included in classified, but unranked order, in Table 6-3 of the Plan.
The Implementation Plan also includes a detailed list of action steps to implement
existing bicycle programs and policies already designated in the Comprehensive Plan.
These action steps both document existing and proposed practices for bikeway facilities
design and maintenance, education, enforcement and outreach promotion.
Projected Bicycle Travel Demand
The plan was drafted to meet all of the requirements of the California Bicycle
Transportation Account (BTA) Program, which is a source of grant funding for bicycle
facilities projects in California. One of the requirements is that the Plan includes an
estimate of the number of existing bicycle commuters and a projection of the increase in
the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the plan. Appendix B
of the Plan includes a detailed analysis of the estimated future bicycle demand, based
on the 1990 census journey to work data and the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission 1990 Travel Survey and the 1995 National Persona Transportation Survey.
As a result of the adoption and implementation of the recommendations of the Plan, the
bicycling mode share of commuter trips within Palo Alto is projected to double from 5.7%
to 10.7% and the share of all daily trips is also projected to double, from 4.4% to 8.6%.
10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings)
Project setting is the City of Palo Alto. San Francisco Bay and associated bayside
wetlands lie to the north and northeast. The cities of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park,
Mountain View, and Los Altos, and the grounds of Stanford University, surround the City
in other directions.
11.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement).
Depending on the activity, permits/approvals may be needed from:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
California Department of Fish and Game
Regional Water Quality Control Board
California Department of Transportation
H:kALLDATAkBIKEPLANkENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 4 of 25
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
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
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the X
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
H:LALLDATAkBIKEPLANkENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 5 of 25
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.
P~oject~.ar)ner.~ ~. ,//-,)
~ector ~ Pla~ng and
Community Environment
Dat?i
Dat4
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)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).
2)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)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.
4)"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).
5)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 (C) (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.
H:kA_LLDATAkBIKEPLANLENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 6 of 25
6)
7)
8)
9)
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.
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.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, 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.
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.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I.
a)1,2,6 X
b)1,6 X
d)
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1,6
1,6
X
X
H:LA~LLDATA~BIKEPLANKENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 7 of 25
Issues and Supporting Information
II.
a)
b)
c)
I!1,
a)
Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
I~sues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 1,2,6 X
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 1,2,6 X
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
Involve other changes in the 1,6 X
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to m=lke
the following determinations. Would the project:
Conflict with or obstruct 1,6 X
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation
c)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)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors
1,6
1,6
1,6
1,6
X
X
X
X
H:kALLDATAkBIKEPLANLENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 8 of 25
..... affecting a substantial number of
...... people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse 1,2,3,5,
effect, either directly or through 6
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?
b) Have a substantial adverse 1,2,3,5,
effect on any riparian habitat or 6
other sensitive natural
community identified in local or
regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect 1,5,6
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?
d) Interfere substantially with the 1,6
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?
..... e) Conflict with any local policies 1,6,7
or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
t’) Conflict with the provisions of an 1,2,3,5,
adopted Habitat Conservation 6
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
X
X
X
X
H:kALLDATA~BIKEPLAN~NV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 9 of 25
b)
c)
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse 1,2,6
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse 1,2,6
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a 1,6
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature?
Disturb any human remains,1,6
including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known 1,2,6
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 1,2,6
shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground 1,2,6
failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?1,2,6
Result in substantial soil erosion 1,2,6.
or the loss of topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or 1,2,6
soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
d)X
Vi.
a)
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
........ b)x
c)x
H:~LLDATA~BIKEPLAN~NV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 10 of 25
d)
e)
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
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 waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Sources
1,2,6
1,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project?
a) Create a significant hazard to the 1,6
public or the environment
through the routing transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b)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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) 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?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
1,6
1,6
1,2,6
1,6
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
H:~_LLDATA~BIKEPLAN~NV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 1! of 25
Issues and Supporting Information
g)
h)
Resources
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
1,6
1,6
1,2,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality 1,6
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete 1,6
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)?
c) Substantially alter the existing 1,6
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
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
H:LA~LLDATA~BIKEPLAN~NV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 12 of 25
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Sources
erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
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?
e)Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped 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
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
........... i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involve flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
d)1,6 X
1,6 X
f) 1,6 X
g)1,2,6 X
X
1,2,6
1,6
No
Impact
X
j)1,6 X
IX.
a)X
b)X
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
Physically divide an established 1,6
community?
Conflict with any applicable land 1,2,3,5,
use plan, policy, or regulation of 6
an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance)
H:~LLDATA~BIKEPLAN~NV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 13 of 25
c)
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable 1,2,5,6
habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation
plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Result in the loss of availability 1,2,6
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability 1,2,6
of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
NOISE. Would the project result
Exposure of persons to or 1,2,4
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 1,2,4,6
generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
A substantial permanent 1,6
increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or 1,6
periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an 1,2,6
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?
...... a)X
..... b)X
XI.
c)
X
X
X
X
X
d)
H:kA_LLDATAkBIKEPLANkENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page !4 of 25
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
f)For a project within the vicinity 1,2,6
of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
XlI. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population 1,6
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)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of 1,6
existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of 1,6
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in 1,6
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?
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
x
X
H:~kLLDATA~BIKEPLAN~ENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 15 of 25
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the 1,6 X
use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include 1,6
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic 1,2
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)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the
county congestion management
agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) 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?
d) Substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking
capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting
1,2
1,2,6
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2’
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
H:kALLDATA’,BIKEPLAN~NV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 16 of 25
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
....XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the p~oject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment 116 X
b)1,6 X
1,6
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
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?
c)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?
f)Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
1,6
1,6
1,6
X
X
X
X
g)1,s x
’XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. ’ ......
a) Does the project have the 1,2,3,5, X
potential to degrade the quality 6
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
H:kALLDATAkBIKEPLANXENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 17 of 25
Issues and Supporting Information
b)
c)
Resources
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?
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)?
Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Sources
1,2,5,6
1,2,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
SOURCE REFERENCES:
1.Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan (2002)
2.1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Final EIR (1998)
3.Bay Trail Plan (1989)
4.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 9.10 Noise
5.Baylands Master Plan and EIR
6.Crreg Zitney, Zitney and Associates, initial preparer, field observations and professional judgment
7.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10 Tree Preservation and Management Regulations
H:LALLDATA~BIKEPLAN~NV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 18 of 25
EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: -- Explain choice of impact
category.
Ib.
ICo
AESTHETICS
No designated scenic vistas would be impacted by the project. Some areas where new bicycle paths
are proposed have natural scenic qualities, such as along creeks and adjacent to marsh habitat. In
these-areas, bicyclists would introduce a new, unnatural visual intrusion, but this is regarded as less
than significant because affected areas are already in an urbanized setting.
The Bay Trail spur path of the proposed Bicycle Plan could impact existing wetland/marsh
vegetation. From a visual standpoint, this is considered less than significant because of the present
urbanized setting.
See response to Ib above.
Implementation of the Bicycle Plan would not introduce new light or glare in areas that would be
sensitive to this impact.
II.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
There are no agricultura! lands in the areas that would be affected by the Bicycle Plan.
See IIa above.
See IIa above.
III.AIR OUALITY
Implementing the Bicycle Plan would have no adverse impacts with regard to air quality
management plans. The plan would have a beneficial impact by enhancing and encouraging
bicycle transportation as an alternative to the automobile.
llIb.The project, once implemented, would not violate existing or projected air quality standards. It
would, in fact, help to achieve standards by encouraging a non-polluting alternative mode of
transportation.
I~Co The Bicycle Plan would help to reduce cumulative increases of criteria pollutants and, therefore,
would have no impact.
llld. Minor and temporary increases in air pollutants would be experienced in local areas where
construction would be required. Because of the short duration of construction activities, impacts
are concluded to be less than significant.
llle.Some people may fred the odors of construction equipment exhaust objectionable. However,
because of the short duration of construction activity and the effectiveness of pollution controls
on equipment, this impact is concluded to be less than significant.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The proposed Bay Trail spur path has the potential to .impact special status and sensitive species
known to inhabit the City of Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve area. Examples of sensitive
species known to inhabit this area include the salt marsh harvest mouse, California clapper rail,
and burrowing owl. Additional site-specific analysis would be necessary at the time of proposed
implementation of this segment to determine the significance of potential impacts and the nature,
extent, and feasibility of mitigation options. This alignment was addressed in the 1978 Bavlands
Master Plan and EIR, in which several mitigation strategies were outlined. In addition, the City’s
H:kALLDATAkBIKEPLA_NkENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 19 of 25
IVe.
Comprehensive Plan Update contains policies (e.g., Policy N-8) that call for the protection of bay
wetland resources. Prior to implementing this portion of the Bicycle Plan, the City is committed
to completing additional public environmental review and meeting the following performance
standards with respect to impacts and mitigation in order to avoid potentially significant impacts:
The City will consult with the Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of Fish and Game, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and other
appropriate agencies as necessary to identify potential impacts and mitigation
oppommities. If necessary, appropriate permits (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
Endangered Species Act, etc.) will be obtained before any disturbance takes place for
implementation.
¯Implementation will not result in a net loss of wetlands or threatened or endangered
species habitat, or in the loss of individuals of protected species, except as may be
authorized by any required federal or state permits.
Improvements along creek corridors also have the potential to impact sensitive species, although
these would most likely involve an increase in human disturbance factors rather than habitat loss.
Compliance with the performance standards listed above would avoid potentially significant
impacts. Therefore, the potential impact for purposes of adopting the Bicycle Plan is concluded to
be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
The wetlands of the Baylands Nature Preserve are valuable and sensitive. The Bay Trail spur
portion of the Bicycle Plan has the potential to directly and indirectly impact this habitat. Further
analysis would be necessary to determine if impacts can be avoided (through alternative routing)
or mitigated. Performance standards described in IVa above are applicable.
The wetlands of the Baylands Nature Preserve would be under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act. In order to implement the Bay Trail spur path segment under the Bicycle
Plan, it is likely that at least a small portion of jurisdictional wetlands would have to be filled.
Further analysis of this issue is required to determine impacts, assess alternatives, and evaluate
mitigation options. See discussion under IVa above regarding applicable future environmental
review and compliance with performance standards.
The Bay Trail spur path in the Baylands Nature Preserve would be aligned along the marsh edge
where it abuts adjacent office development and parking areas. As such, the spur path would not
substantially interfere with movement of fish or wildlife, and the potential impact is concluded to
be less than significant.
The proposed Bicycle Plan would require the removal of some established trees, most notably
along Alma Street, but possibly at other locations as well. It is unknown at this time whether any
of these trees would qualify under the City’s tree ordinance as heritage trees; however, the City
would conduct surveys where necessary and follow the City’s tree ordinance mitigation
requirements prior to implementing affected segments of the Bicycle Plan. For purposes of
adoption of the Bicycle Plan, therefore, this performance standard leads to the conclusion that the
potential impact is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
The proposed project may conflict with habitat preservation and management objectives of the
Baylands Nature Preserve as described earlier. No other known Habitat Conservation Plans
would be affected. With the City’s commitment to comply with performance standards described
in IVa above, this potential impact is concluded to be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
H:Lad.LDATAkBIKEPLANkENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 20 of 25
No
NCo
Vd.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Known historical resources would not be impacted by the Bicycle Plan.
Much of the City of Palo Alto is identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR (1996) as having at
least moderate sensitivity with respect to archaeological resources. Several pockets of "Extreme
Sensitivity" are also indicated. Establishing bicycle lanes, routes, and boulevards on existing
roads and right-of-ways has virtually no potential to impact archaeological resources. However,
new bicycle paths or lanes that require widening onto previously undisturbed ground do have a
potential for impacting archaeological resources. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan EIR
Mitigation CULT-l, specific archaeological mitigation measures may be required for specific
projects, dependant upon anticipated project impacts. All surface-disturbing projects in these
areas shall be subjected to archaeological assessment, intensive surface survey and/or subsurface
testing as part of the project planning efforts.
None of the project features are located in areas of know paleontological resources or unique
geological features. In addition, implementation of project features would not involve excavation
to depths that would reveal unknown paleontological resources.
Although unlikely, there is a possibility that human remains could be uncovered during
construction of bicycle paths in undisturbed areas. In such cases, the Comprehensive Plan EIR
mitigations, discussed in for item Vb. Above would pertain.
VIaii.
VIaiii.
VIaiv.
VIb.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The City is subject to fault rupture a~d related seismic shaking from several faults in the area
(Comprehensive Plan, 1996). Construction activities associated with implementing the Bicycle
Plan could place some workers at risk if fault rupture should occur. Because the risk associated
with the project is no greater than any other construction activity and, in fact, is considered low
because of the relatively small amount of construction involved and its short duration, the
potential impact is considered to be less than significant. Once implemented, the Bicycle Plan
would not significantly expose people or structures to hazards associated with fault rupture,
assuming that all local and state construction standards relating to seismic stability are
implemented in construction of bridges and undercrossings.
See VIai above.
The project would not create structures that would house people or otherwise place people or
structures at substantial risk. The potential impact is, therefore, concluded to be less than
significant.
Project features would not be located in areas with significant landslide risk.
There is always a risk of soil erosion at construction sites when soil is disturbed. Erosion can be
controlled effectively using standard control methods for construction sites when work is
performed during precipitation months.. Bicycle paths located near creeks will be designed so as
not to cause erosion of creek banks consistent with policies and programs in the Natural
Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Unstable soils are generally found between Highway 101 and the bay, and in some of the steeper
foothill areas. Because of the nature and locations of improvements proposed in the Bicycle Plan,
the project would not be affected by, or aggravate, unstable soils or slopes.
H:LkLLDATAkBIKEPLANkENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 21 of 25
Expansive soils would not affect implementation of the Bicycle Plan due to the primarily non-
structural nature of the improvements. For undercrossings and bridges, standard pre-constrnction
soil engineering analysis would take into account any soil conditions present.
Wastewater is not an issue for this project.
glint
VIIf.
VIIg.
VIIh.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous materials use and/or storage is not a component of this project, and no risks to the
public would occur.
See VIIa.
See VIIa.
The various segments of the Bicycle Plan would not be located on any hazardous materials sites.
The Bay Trail spur path is proposed within 1/4 mile of the runway at Palo Alto airport. This is a
community airport with no commercial service. Because of this and the temporary and transient
use of a bicycle path, potential impacts are considered to be less than significant.
See VIIe above.
The project would not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans.
The project features are not located in areas of wildland ftre risk.
vIIIf.
vIIIg.
VIIIh.
VIIIi.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
No waste discharges are associated with the Bicycle Plan.
No groundwater withdrawals are associated with this project.
New bicycle paths will not significantly alter local drainage patterns. In areas near streams, care
must be taken to prevent concentrated runoff from eroding stream banks. (See Mitigation
Measures VIb-1 and VIb-2.)
See VIIIc. Implementation of the Bicycle Plan would not result in flooding on- or off-site.
New bicycle paths, where paved with impervious material, can increase the rate of runoff to
nearby drainages. Due to the linear nature of the bicycle paths and the small area of paved path,
runoff would not exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems or substantially
increase polluted runoff.
See VIIIe.
Housing is not a component of the Bicycle Plan.
No structures are proposed that would impede or redirect flood flows.
The project involves providing bicycle lanes along concrete-lined channels, which are used to
convey stormwater during the rainy season. However, these routes would be closed to bicyclists
during this period, so potential impacts are concluded to be less than significant.
Project features would not be subject to any of the listed events.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
IXa. The proposed Bicycle Plan would not physically divide an established community.
H:kALLDATAkBIKEPLANkENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 22 of 25
Implementation of the Bicycle Plan would further the goals of policies and programs in the
Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan dealing with bicycle transportation.
One segment of the plan (the Bay Trail spur path) has the potential to impact wetlands at the
Baylands Nature Preserve. (See checklist item IV.) This segment has the potential to be in
conflict with the City’s Natural Environment Policy Element (POLICYN-8: Preserve andprotect
the Bay, marshlands, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks, and other natural water or wetland areas as
open space), as well as state and federal policies and regulations dealing with wetlands and
sensitive species. However, the City is committed to complying with performance standards
described under checkdist item IVa. Compliance with these performance standards would render
this potential impact less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in the areas that
would be affected by the Bicycle Plan.
X.MINERAL RESOURCES
Xa.There are no significant mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto that could be affected by
the Bicycle Plan.
Xb.See Xa.
NOISE
There will be no significant long-term noise generated with implementation of the Bicycle Plan.
Construction of new bicycle paths and/or bicycle lanes that would necessitate road widening,
undercrossings, and bridges would generate noise on a short-term basis. Because of the temporary
nature of the Construction, and assuming compliance with the City’s noise ordinance, potential
impacts are concluded to be less than significant.
Excessive ground borne vibration or noise would not typically be associated with the type of
construction involved in implementing the project; therefore, potential impacts are concluded to
be less than significant.
The primary noise associated with bicycle paths, lanes, etc. is people talking. This would not
represent a substantial increase in ambient noise levels, so the potential impact is concluded to be
less than significant.
XId.See XIa.
XIe.The Bay Trail spur path is proposed within 1/4 mile of the runway at Palo Alto airport. This is a
community airport with no commercial service. Because of this and the temporary and transient
use of a bicycle path, potential impacts are considered to be less than si~olLificant.
XIf. See XIe.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
The proposed project would not indirectly induce substantial population growth because it does
not propose extension of roads or other infrastructure. It only encourages use of alternative
transportation within and between existing developed areas.
No housing would be displaced.
No people would be displaced.
H:kALLDATAkBIKEPLANkENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 23 of 25
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
XIIIa. Implementation of the Bicycle Plan would have no adverse effects upon government services.
XIV. RECREATION
XIVa. The project would not substantially increase use of parks and other recreation facilities, but would
simply encourage alternative means of transport to and from them. Potential impacts are
considered to be less than significant.
XIVb.No "recreational facilities" per se are proposed that would have an adverse effect on the
environment; however, see item IV for a discussion of potentially significant effects of the Bay
Trail spur path.
XVbo
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Some segments of the Bicycle Plan could potentially involve traffic lane reductions (number
and!or width) for automobiles. This could have substantial effects on traffic volume to capacity
ratios. This impact was discussed in the EIR for the City’s 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update and
was found to be significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding consideration was
adopted. Implementation of the Bicycle Plan would, therefore, not result in new potentially
significant impacts beyond those addressed in the Comprehensive Plan Update EIR.
See XVa.
Air traffic patterns would not be affected by the project.
The Bicycle Plan should, overall, reduce hazards to bicyclists by increasing designated paths,
lanes, routes, and boulevards; therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
Implementation of the Bicycle Plan would not adversely affect emergency access.
Implementation of the Bicycle Plan would not adversely affect parking capacity. Provisions for
bicycle parking are included in the plan.
The Bicycle Plan would further adopted City plans for alternative transportation.
XVI. ULTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
XVIa-gNo utilities or service systems would be affected by the proposed Bicycle Plan.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Bay Trail spur path portion of the project has the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, reduce the habitat of wildlife, and reduce the number or restrict the range of special
status animals. The Comprehensive Plan and EIR contain policies and programs to protect
existing biological resources, and riparian corridors and standards for development along natural
creeks allow for passive or intermittent outdoor activities and pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle
pathways where there are adequate setbacks to protect the natural riparian environment..
Performance standards have been identified in checklist item IVa to insure that significant
impacts would be avoided and/or mitigated and these are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
EIR.
XVIIb.See XVIIa. Potential reduction of habitat in the Baylands Nature Preserve area could have
"cumulatively considerable" effects considering the high value of wetland habitat and the fact
H:kALLDATAkBIKEPLANkENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doc Page 24 of 25
that it supports populations of special status species. Compliance with the identified performance
standards will avoid or mitigate adverse impacts.
XVIIe.The project would have less than significant adverse effects on human beings due to the
temporary nature of construction activities and the City’s commitment to follow City noise
standards. By encouraging alternative transportation, effects are considered to be beneficial
overall.
H:kALLDATAkBIKEPLANkENV Checklist Form for Bike Plan.doe Page 25 of 25
NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
CERTIFYING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUIVfENT FOR
THE BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN,CERTIFYING AN
ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
RESTATING THE STATE/V~NT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS CONTAINED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT, AND AMENDING THE 1998-2010 CITY OF
PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ADOPTING THE 2003
PALO ALTO BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto adopted the 1998-2002
comprehensive general plan in 1998, including the Transportation
Element; and
WHEREAS, Policy T-14 provides that the City shall: Improve
pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations,
including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment
districts, shopping centers and multi-modal transit stations; and
WHEREAS, Program T-18 provides that the City shall: develop
and periodically update a comprehensive bicycle plan; and
WHEREAS, Program T-19 provides that the City shall develop,
periodically update and implement a bicycle facilities improvement
program and prioritize critical bicycle links to parks, schools,
retail centers and civic facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City has conducted a public outreach program
in developing the 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan, (the
~Project"), including facilitating a community workshop on December
13, 2000 taking comment from the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory
Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission heard
public comment and reviewed and considered the Draft Palo Alto
Bicycle Transportation Plan at its meetings of June 5, 2002 and.
August 14, 2002; and recommended the Council approve the plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard public comment and reviewed
the Bicycle Transportation Plan on May 18, 2003; and
WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Update Final
Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to analyze potentia!
environmental impacts of the project; and
031119 sm 0091230
NOT YET APPROVED
WHEREAS, the City wishes to implement its Comprehensive
Plan by adopting a Bicycle Transportation Plan that is consistent
with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan itself.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION i. Background.The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. The City of Palo Alto ("City") proposes to adopt the
2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan.
B. The City as the lead agency for the Project has caused
to be prepared an Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Update Final
Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"). The Final EIR, which was
approved by the Council on July 20, 1998, and the Addendum, are on
file in the office of the Director of Planning and Community
Environment and, along with the planning and other City records,
minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings, is
incorporated herein by this reference.
C. The City Council has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final EIR and the Addendum and record
of proceedings, including but not limited to testimony received by
the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council during
its public hearings on the Project and responses by staff during
those public hearings.
SECTION 2. Certification. The City Council certifies that
the Addendum has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. The Addendum was presented to the City
Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final EIR and the Addendum, staff
reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the
proposed Project, and all other matters deemed material and
relevant before considering the 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan.
The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR and Addendum
reflects the independent judgment of the City as lead agency.
SECTION 3. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations Reaffirmed.
A. The City Council hereby reconfirms and readopts every
finding of fact and declaration in Resolution No. 7780 attached to
this resolution as Exhibit ~A" and incorporated herein, including,
but not limited to, identification of significant impacts which can
be mitigated to a less than significant level, identification of
significant impacts that cannot be fully mitigated, alternative
031119 sm 0091230
NOT YET APPROVED
analysis, statement of overriding considerations,
identification of impacts found not to be significant.
and
B. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City
Council finds that unavoidable environmental impacts of the
Project, described in Section 4 of this Resolution, are acceptable
when balanced against the benefits of the Project, even after
giving greater weight to the City’s duty to avoid the environmental
impacts, and to protect the environment to the maximum extent
feasible. This determination is made based upon the following
factors and public benefits, which are also identified in the Final
EIR and record of proceedings on the Project, including Resolution
No. 7780:
Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan update will reduce
the reliance on the automobile by encouraging the development of
more housing near transit, reducing the emphasis on traffic
improvements in favor of pedestrian and bicycle improvements,
choosing limitations on continuous roadway system capacity
increases, and providing a land use pattern less dependent on the
automobile.
SECTION 4. Additional Findings.
and determines that:
The City Council finds
A. Implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan, will
not have significant adverse impact with regard to aesthetics, air
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and
soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water
quality, land use and planning, noise generation or exposure,
police, fire, and emergency and non-emergency medical services, or
utilities and service systems. Some site specific mitigation
measures will be formulated on a case by case basis as required
under existing city regulations and practices.
B. The Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan identified
significant and unavoidable impacts related to the increased
congestion that would occur by the allocation of limited right-of-
way space for use by bicyclists and pedestrians, rather than for
additional automobile travel lanes. The Final EIR found that no
feasible mitigation or alternative existed to reduce this impact to
a less-than significant level because as a matter of policy, to
encourage alternative transportation modes, the City chooses to
provide for bicyclists and pedestrians before motorists, and has
determined not to condemn and purchase additional private property
which may be necessary to accommodate both.
C. The Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan identified the
potential for increased congestion that would occur by using
available right-of-wayto create outside travel lanes with adequate
width for shared use by motorists and bicyclist when constructing
031 ! 19 sm 0091230
3
NOT YET APPROVED
or modifying roadways, rather than using the right of way for
additional automobile travel lanes. The Final EIR concluded that
no feasible mitigation or alternative exists to reduce this impact
to a less-than significant level because, as a matter of policy, to
encourage alternate modes of transportation, the City chooses to
provide for bicyclists before motorists, and has determined not to
condemn and purchase the private property that may be necessary to
accommodate both.
D. The Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan identified the
potential degradation in operation of intersections that could
occur through implementation of the City policy to forgo
intersection improvements in favor of pedestrian and bicycle safety
concerns. No feasible mitigation or alternative exists to reduce
this impact to a less than significant level because the impact is
an intentional result of the policy. While the City does not
desire traffic congestion, it chooses to try to reduce congestion
through encouraging alternative transportation modes. The City
prefers this approach over providing additional roadway capacity
that will not reduce congestion over the long term.
E. The Final EIR for the Comprehensive Plan identified the
overall degradation of level of service to bicyclists created by
increased congestion in the City at several intersections. Because
traffic impacts at six of the nine significantly impacted
intersections would remain significant even after mitigation, the
delay to bicycles would also remain significant. The city found
that there is no feasible mitigation or alternative to reduce the
impact to bicycle travel to less-than-significant levels.
SECTION 5. Substantial Evidence. Substantial evidence
supporting each and every finding made herein is contained in the
Final EIR and Addendum and in the record of proceedings on the
Project.
SECTION 6. No Recircu!ation Required. The Council finds
that there is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion that
significant new information has been added to the Final EIR so as
to warrant its recirculation pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. This finding
is based upon al! the information presented in the Final EIR, the
Addendum, and record of proceedings.
//
//
//
//
031119 sm 0091230
4
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 7. Adoption. The City Council finds that the
public interest, health, safety and welfare of both Palo Alto and
the surrounding region require amendment of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan by adoption of the 2003 Bicycle Transportation
Plan set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to this resolution and made
a part of it. The City Council hereby amends the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan by adopting the 2003 Bicycle Transportation
Plan.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning
and Community Environment
031119 sm 0091230
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO.7780
RESOLUT!ON OF THE COUNCIL OFTHE CITY OF PALO ALTO
CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE 1998-2010
COMPREHENS iVE PLAN FINAL EN-g! RONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (FEIR) AND MAKING FINDINGS THEREON PURSU/LNT
TO THE CALIFORNIA EErgIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
AND ADOPTING THE 1998-2010 CITY OF PALO ALTO
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AI~D LA_ND USE AND CIRCULATION
WHEREAS, Section 65300, et sen., of the California
Government Code and the Palo Alto Municipal Code authorize the City
to prepare !ong-range, comprehensive plans; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto adopted a comprehensive
genera! plan in 1980, consisting of a genera! plan text and maps;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the
existing comprehensive plane as amended, must he revised to address
the range and breadth of issues, technological, environmental,
economic, and demographic changes that have affected Palo Alto
since the 1980 plan was adopted; and
WHEREAS, subsequent analyses prepared by both the
Planning and Community Development Department and its consultants,
in consultation with the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee,
demonstrated that the City’s comprehensive plan required many other
technica! and policy modifications; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that further development
approvals 1~nder the existing comprehensive plan ~,~,~÷~te a threat
to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents by failing to
secure adequate facilities, environmental quality, and fiscal
security desirable to the citizens of Palo Alto; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the draft comprehensive plan and the accompanying environmental
impact report.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTIQN i. Background.The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Counci!") finds, determines, and declares as
fol!ows:
A. The City of Palo Alto ("City") proposes to adopt the
1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to replace the 1980-1995
Comprehensive Plan. The 1998-2010 plan consists of a Land Use and
Corm~unity Design Element, a Transportation Element, a Housing
950716 ape 0052027
1
a Housing Element, a Natural Environment Element, a Community
Services and Facilities Element, a Business and Economic Element,
a Land Use and Circulation Map, and a Governance Chapter and
Implementation Chapter.
B.. The City as the lead agency for the Project has caused
to be prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR").
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR
consists of the following documents and records: "Palo Alto 1998-
2010 Comprehensive Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, December
1996"; "Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Final Environmenta!
Impact Report, September 1997", and the planning and other City
records, minutes, and files constituting the record of proceedings.
The Final EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"),
and. the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Section 15000, et seq. The Final EIR is on file in the
office of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and,
along with the planning and other City records, minutes and files
constituting the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by
this reference.
C. The initia! Notice of Preparation was distributed on
May 8, 1996~ The Draft EIR was circulated for public review
between January 2, 1997 and February 20, 1997. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on February 19
and 20, 1997; and Plarming Commission review on March 4,5, and 13,
1997.
D. The City Council, in conjunction with this resolution,
is also approving a reporting and monitoring program pursuant to
Public Resources Code S~ct~ ~0~ 6. ’ ~’ ~ ~^wh~,~h ~~ ~ deslg~=~ ~
ensure compliance with Project changes and mitigation measures
imposed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects
identified in the Final EIR, and described in detai! in the Final
EIR which is incorporated herein by this reference.
E. The City Council has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Fina! EIR and record of proceedings,
including but not limited to testimony received by the Council
during the September 23, 29, and 30, 1997, public hearings on the
Project and responses by staff during those public hearings.
The City Counci! then reviewed the Plan and FEiR at five subsequent
meetings before referring the Plan and FEIR back to the Planning
Commission with revisions.
SECTION 2 CeKtification. The City Council certifies that
the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. The Fina! EIR was presented to the City
Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final EIR,-staff reports, ora! and
9S0716 ~c 0052027
written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Project,
and al! other matters deemed material and relevant before
considering the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Update for approva!.
The City Counci! hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the
independent judgment of the City as lead agency.
SECTION 3 Significant immacts Which .Can Be Mitig.ated to.
a Les.s Than Si...gnificant Leve!. The City Counci! finds that the
Fina! EIR identifies potentially significant environmenta! effects
of the Project in regard to Land Use and Public Policy;
Transportation, Circulation and Parking; Noise; Air Quality;
Hydrology; Public Services and Utilities; open space and
Recreation; Vegetation and Wildlife; and Cultural Resources. The
City Council finds that, i~ response to each significant effect
listed in this Section 3’, all feasible changes or alterations which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the Fina! EIR as summarized be!ow, have been
incorporated into the Project. This fol!ows Public Resources Code
Section 2!081(a) (i) which allows for findings stating that for each
significant effect "changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment." Each of the Mitigation
Measures summarized below is more fully described in the Final EIR.
A. Land Use and Public Policy
Impact LU-! concerns the potential incompatibilities between land
uses that can occur within mixed use development. Mixed use
development is encouraged in Policy L-9. This potential impact
will be mitigated to less than significant levels by adopting and
applying performance standards for use in reviewing mixed use
development as described in Hitigation Measure LU-I. These
standards will ~Iso be incorporated into the requirements of any
new zoning districts that are added to the zoning ordinance for the
purpose of regulating development under the proposed new mixed use
land use desigations. Suchstandards will be incorporated into the
zoning ordinance to apply to any mixed use development that which
could be al!owed in existing zoning districts.
Impact LU-2 concerns the potential for land use incompatibilities
between housing and !) parking lots, and 2) commercial centers as
encouraged in Policy LU-2. This potentia! impact will be reduced
to less than significant levels through the implementation of the
Architectura! Review process and the incorporation of design
features described in Mitigation LU-2 (i.e., features relating to
noise buffering, pedestrian safety, view protection, and contro! of
odors and fumes) within specific projects. These design measures
wil! be required as mitigation in the CEQA review of those mixed
use projects.
Impact LU-3 concerns the potential environmental impacts of the
various options to provide a pedestrian/bicycle connection across
980716 ape 0052027
E1 Cam!no Real between the Ventura and Barton Park neighborhoods.
These impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels by
restricting the options to an at-grade crossing, according to the
criteria described in Mitigation Measure LU-3.
B. Transpq..rtation, Ci..rculation, an..d Parking
ImpactCIRC-5 concerns the anticipated decrease in level of service
at the Hiddlefield Road/Oregon Expressway intersection from LOS E
to LOS F. This impact will be reduced to less than significant
levels through construction of the road improvements as described
in Mitigation Measure CIRC-5. These improvements(which include the
provision of an exclusive left turn lane and dual through lanes on
the Hiddlefield Road approaches to the intersection, changing the
signa! operation to eight-phase, and the provision of a second left
turn lane in the westbound Oregon Expressway approach) wil! be
funded by the City’s Traffic Impact Fee, if appropriate, by a
revised traffic impact fee, and/or by other City funds.
Impact CIRC-7 concerns the anticipated decrease in level of service
at the E1 Cam!no Rea!/Embarcadero Road intersection from LOS D to
LOS F. This impact will be reduced to a less than significant
level through construction of the improvements described in
Mitigation Heasure CIRC-7, which include the construction of a
left-turn lane on the southbound E1 Cam!no Real approach and the
restriping of one existing westbound lane on Embarcadero Road to
provide a shared through/left movement. These improvements wi!l be
partially funded by the Pa!o Alto Medical Foundation as a
mitigation for impacts caused by their new campus on Urban Lane, at
such time as the left lane movements from southbound E1 Cam!no Rea!
onto Embarcadero Road reach 300 vehicles in the PH peak hour. If
this threshold ~s not reached, ~^ ~ -- ~.~ .... ~ ~-
improvement and PAMF will pay for 47 percent of its cost. The
City’s portion of the improvement cost will be funded by the City’s
Traffic Impact Fee, if appropriate, by a revised traffic impact
fee, and/or by other City funds.
Impact CIRC-II concerns the anticipated decrease in level of
service at the intersection of Foothill Expressway/Arastadero Road
from LOS to LOS F. This impact wil! be reduced to less than
significant levels through construction of the improvements a!ong
Arastadero Road described in Mitigation Measure CIRC-II, which
requires the City to construct an additiona! lane on the westbound
~astadero Road approach to Miranda Avenue, a right turn lane to
Miranda Avenue, and two through lanes and two exclusive left turn
lanes at Foothill Expressway. These improvements will also be
coordinated with a potential City project to provide bicycle lanes
in both directions on Arastadero Road between Miranda Avenue and
Gum.n High Schoo!. These improvements will be funded by the City’s
Traffic Impact Fee, if appropriate, by a revised traffic impact
fee, and/or by other City funds.
980716 apc 0052027
Impact CIRC-19 concerns the increased parking demand in excess of
the parking supply in the Downtown and California Avenue commercia!
areas. This impact wil! be reduced to less than sigm_ificant levels
through implementation of the parking cap, parking deficit
monitoring, parking provision and/or residentia! parking permit
programs described in Mitigation Measure CIRC-19.
Impact CIRC-20 concerns potential traffic safety impacts at the
Embarcadero Road / East Bayshore Road, E1 Camino Real/Embarcadero
Road, and Alma Street/ Charleston Road intersections. This impact
will be reduced to less than significant levels through
continuation of the City’s program to monitor and identify high
accident intersections and to institute safety programs at these
intersections as described in Mitigation Measure CIRG-20.
Impact CIRC-21 concerns increases in safety problems on
neighborhood streets due to cut-through traffic in neighborhoods
already experiencing these problems. This impact will be reduced
to a less than significant leve! through continued implementation
of the City’s Traffic Safety Program which addresses enforcement,
street maintenance, and traffic improvements projects as described
in Mitigation Measure CIRC-2!.
C. Noise
Impact NOISE-2 concerns the potential for exposure of new and
existing deve!opment next to unacceptable noise sources such as
major roadways. These impacts will be reduced to less than
significant levels through the implementation of Mitigation Measure
NOISE-2. This measure requires the adoption of and implementation
of new policies relating to the review of proposed projects with
respect to quantitative noise guidelines and the use of standard
thresholds of significance for CEQA noise evaluations. These new
policies have been added to the Natura! Environment Element of the
Comprehensive Plan as Policies N-39, N-41, and N-42.
D. Air...0uality
Impact AIR-1 concerns potential land use conflicts created when
locating new land uses near sources of loca! odor and toxic
emissions. This impact will be reduced to less than significant
levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-! that
requires the adoption of a policy to require adequate buffers,
mechanical ventilation systems, or other measure that would prevent
odors or toxic emissions from causing human health impacts. Such
a policy has been added to the Natural Environment Element of the
Comprehensive Plan as Policy N-29.
E. Hydrolo.Ny
Impact HYDRO-2 concerns the potentia! risk to new deve!opment in
areas subject to f!ooding due to dam failure. These i~macts wil!
980716 apc 005~027
5
be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation
of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2 which requires review of ongoing
technical evaluations of dam safety and cooperation with relevant
entities to implement the project-specific mitigation measures
included in those technical studies.
F. Pub!i services......a.nd...~t~!.~t..ies
Impact PUBSERV-6 concerns the increased generation of solid waste
by development facilitated by the Comprehensive Plan Update. This
impact will be reduced to less than significant levels through
implementation of Mitigation Measure PUBSERV 6-A which requires
that al! major construction projects prepare construction recycling
plans, and through implementation of Mitigation Measure PUBSERV 6-B
that requires all major development projects prepare operational
recycling plans. These requirements wil! be included in the
standard conditions of approva! for al! projects subject to
Architectura! Review.
Impact PUBSERV-7 concerns the increased demands on fire suppression
and emergency services. This impact will be reduced to less than
significant levels through the implementation of Hitigation Measure
PUBSERV-7 that requires the City either adopt an im_oact fee or
provide other funding to offset these increasesd servive demands.
The City will provide additional funds from the General fund to
support necessary increases in fire suppression and emergency
services.
l~nact PUBSERV-8 concerns the increased demands on police services.
This impact will be reduced to less than significant levels through
the implementation of Hitigation Heasure PUBSERV-8 which requires
that the City either adopt an impact fee or provide other funding
additiona! funds from the General Fund to support necessary
increases in police services.
G. Open Spa.ce.....and ~e...cr..ea...t&on
Impact OS-9 concerns the increased demand for neighborhood parks.
This impact will be reduced to less than significant levels
through the implementation of Hitigation Measure OS-! that requires
the City review deve!opment projects to ensure that adequate park
facilities are provided and that proposed projects would not result
in a significant increase in the existing shortage of park
facilities. Financing for additional park lands will be provided
through the implementation of public or private financing
mechanisms.
H. Veg, etation and Wildlife
Impact B!O-! concerns the loss of non-native grasslands contiguous
to San Francisquito Creek due to the antic!pared construction of
980716 ape 0052027
the Sand Hill Road Corridor projects. This impact will be reduced
to less than significant levels through implementation of
grassland protection mitigations described in detail in the Sand
Hil! Road Corridor Projects Final Environmenta! Impact Report and
as required by Mitigation Measure OS-I. Implementation of such
mitigations are also a condition of approval of the Sand Hil! Road
Corridor Projects.
i. ~ultural
Impact CULT-! concerns the potential for disruption to undiscovered
cultural resource sites in the City during the construction of new
development. This impact wil! be reduced to less than significant
levels by implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-I that requires
an archeological sensitivity map be included in the Comprehensive
Plan for use in determining the specific methods of identifying and
protecting cultural resources during construction. Such a map has
been added ~to the Comprehensive Plan as~Figure L-8.
SECTION 4. SiGnificant Impacts That Cannot.. Be Fully
Mi.tig.ated. The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies
significant environmenta! effects of the Project with respect to
Transportation, Circulation and Parking; Hydro!ogy; and Public
Services and Utilities. The City Counci! finds that, in response
to each such significant effects identified in this Section 4,
while al! identified feasible changes or alterations ~have been
required in, or incorporated into, the Project that lessen to the
extent feasible, the significant environmental effects as
identified in the Final EIR, these effects cannot be totally
avoided or reduced to levels of insignificance if the Project is
implemented. Accordingly, the impacts summarized below remain
unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project.
A. Transportation, .Cir..<u!ation and Pa.r~ing
Impact CIRC-I concerns the potential for increased congestion that
would occur by using available right-of-way to create outside
travel lanes with adequate width for shareduse by motorists and
bicyclist when constructing or modifying roadways, rather than
using the right of way for additional automobile travel lanes. No
feasible mitigation or alternative exists to reduce this impact to
a less-than significant level because, as a matter of policy, to
encourage alternate modes of transportation, the City chooses to
provide for bicyclists before motorists, and has determined not to
condemn and purchase the private property that may be necessary to
accommodate both.
Impact CIRC-2 concerns the potential for increased congestion that
would occur by the al!ocation of limited right-of-way space for use
by bicyclists and pedestrians, rather than for additional
automobile trave! lanes. No feasible mitigation or alternative
exists to reduce this impact to a less-than significant level
920716 ap~ 0052027
because as a matter of policy, to encourage alternative
transportation modes, the City chooses to provide for bicy!ists and
pedestrians before motorists, and has determined not to condemn and
purchase additional private property which may be necessary to
accommodate both.
Impact CIRC-3 concerns the potential increases in congestion that
would occur by implementing the City policy to avoid creating new
roadway segment capacity, i.e., no road widenings. No feasible
mitigation or alternative exists to reduce thisimpact to a less-
than significant level because the impact is an intentiona! result
of the policy. While the City does not desire congestion, it
recognizes that constantly increasing roadway capacity wil! not
reduce congestion over the long term.
impact CIRC-4 concerns the potential degradation in operation of
intersections that could occur through implementation of the City
policy to forgo intersection improvements in favor of pedestrian
and bicycle safety concerns. No feasible mitigation or alternative
exists to reduce this impact to a less than significant level
because the impact is an intentional result of the policy. While
the City does not desire traffic congestion, it chooses to try to
reduce congestion through encouraging alternative transportation
modes. The City prefers this approach over constantly providing
additiona! roadway capacity that wi!l not reduce congestion over
the long term.
Impact CIRC-6 concerns the decrease in level of service which would
occur at the intersection of Middlefield Road/San Antonio Road.
While participation in the Countywide Deficiency Plan is considered
to offset this impact according to the Congestion Management Agency
standard, no feasible mitigation is available to offset this impact
according to the City’s standard of =i~nificance. Three
improvement projects have been identified that would reduce the
severity of the impacts to the operation of the intersection.
However, these mitigations are not considered feasible because the
amount of improvement in intersection operation would be very small
compared to l)the expense of utility re!ocation work that would be
required to construct the improvements, and 2]the expense and
dificulty in acquiring additional right-of-way from adjacent
property owners, some of which have substantial improvements and
structures.
impact CIRC-8 concerns the decrease in leve! of service that would
occur at the intersection of E! Camino Rea! and Page Mill Road.
This impact would be reduced through implementation of the
improvements described in Mitigation Measure CIRC-8. These
improvements include the construction of a right-turn lane on the
southbound and northbound E1 Camino Rea! approaches, provision of
an increased turning radius on the southeast corner of the
intersection, and construction of a right-turn lane and a
lengthened left turn lane on the westbound Page Mill Road approach.
920716 ape 0052027
The turn lanes on the E! Camino Real approaches would require the
acquisition of approximately 12 feet of private property on the
side where the lane would be constructed. Even with these
improvements the operation of the intersection wil! decrease in
level of service from LOS D to LOS E. No feasible mitigation or
alternative exists to reduce this impact to a less-than significant
level because improvements beyond those described above would
require even more private right of way. The City is unwilling as
a matter of policy, to condem and purchase this additiona! right-
of-way for roadway improvements due to the expense and dificUity in
acquiring such right-of-way compared to the limited improvement in
leve! of service that would be provided.
impact CIRC-9 concerns the decrease in level of service that would
occur at the E1 Camino Real/Arastadero Road/Charleston Road
intersection. While there are several improvements that could be
made to this intersection, they would requi<e the acquisition of
additional right-of-way from adjacent property owners, and none
would result in sufficient improvement in intersection operation to
justify the difficulty and expense of completing these
improvements. In addition, the potentia! improvements to the
intersection would create difficulty for bicycles and pedestrians
traveling through the intersection. For these reasons, the City
concludes that no feasible mitigation or alternative exists to
reduce this impact to a less-than-signifcant level.
Impact CIRC-!0 concerns the decrease in level of service that would
occur at the intersection of E1 Camino Real and San Amtonio Road.
While there are severa! improvements that could be made to this
intersection, they would require the aquisition of additiona!
right-of-way, and none would result in sufficient improvement in
intersection operation to justify the dificu!ty and expense of
completing these improvements° In addition, the potentia!
improvements to the intersection would create difficulty for
bicycles and pedestrians traveling through the intersection. For
these reasons, the City concludes that no feasible mitigation or
alternative exists to reduce this impact to a less-than-signifcant
level.
Impact CIRC-12 concerns the decrease in level of service that would
occur at the /tlma/Char!eston intersection. While there are several
improvement projects which could be done at this intersection, they
would al! require the acquisition of additional right-of-way. None
of these projects would result in sufficient improvement in
intersection operation to justify the dificulty and expense of
constructing these projects. In addition, the potential
improvements to the intersection would create difficulty for
bicycles and pedestrians traveling through the intersection. For
these reasons, the City finds that no feasible mitigation or
alternative exists to reduce this impact to a less-than signifcant
leve!.
980716 apc 0052027
9
Impact CIRC-!3 concerns the decrease in level of service that would
occur at the Embarcadero Road/East Bayshore Road intersection.
While there are several improvement projects which could be
completed at this intersection, none would result in sufficient
improvement in intersection operation to justify the dificulty and
expense of completing these projects. In addition, the potential
improvements to the intersection would likely be offset by added
northbound PM peak hour commute period traffic seeking an
alternative to congested Highway i0!. For these reasons, the City
finds that no feasible mitigation or alternative exists to reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact CIRC-14 concerns the increased traffic volumes on local
streets due to congestion on arteria!s and collectors. The
severity of this impact would be reduced by the implementation of
the traffic calming program described in Mitigation Measure CIRC-14
which would increase safety on those streets and may serve as a
deterent to drivers seeking a faster "cut through" route. However,
traffic calming measures are primarily effective in reducing
traffic speeds, and do not always reduce traffic volumes.
Therefore, the City finds that no feasible mitigation or
alternative exists to reduce this impact to a less-than signifcant
leve!.
Impact C!RC-15 concerns the increased traffic volumes on the
fol!owing road segments: Oregon Expressway east of Alma Street, E1
Camino Real between Embarcadero Road and Churchil! Avenue, E1
Camino Real south of Charleston Road, San ~mtonio Road west of
Middlefield Road, and Foothill Expressway south of ~mastadero Road.
The creation of additional capacity on these roadways would require
the acquisition of private property from a large number of property
owners to provide additional right-of-way. In addition to the
expense and effort involved in such a task, the City, as a matter
of policy, chooses not to conderan and purchase property for roadway
improvements. To this end, proposed Comprehensive Plan Policy T-26
discourages the City from adding roadway capacity. Because the
City chooses not to provide the additional capacity, no feasible
mitigation or alternative exists to reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
impact CIRC-16 concerns the increase in traffic on Highway I01
which currently operates at LOS F. Most of the increase on Highway
i01 would result from regiona! cummu!ative growth. Solutions to
such regiona! problems are complicated by the number, variety and
of type of jurisdictions involved, in the case of Highway i01,
these agencies include Caltrans, Santa Clara County, San Hateo
County, and all the cities along the route. While some measures,
such as metered onramps, could help reduce the problem, none of the
potential congestion solutions considered by the Santa Clara County
County Congestion Management Agency for inclusion in the Santa
Clara County Deficiency Plan would improve LOS on the freeway to an
acceptable level. Simple freeway widening is considered to be
9~0716 apc 0052027
!0
infeasible based on environ_menta! constraints and the expense and
difficulty in obtaining the necessa<y right-of-way. Therefore, City
participation in the Countywide Deficiency Plan would not fully
mitigate the LOS F conditions. Because the freeway is a part of the
regiona! circulation system, !ocalized improvements (e.g., isolated
widenings within Palo Alto) would not improve overall congestion
problems on the freeway, but rather are more likely to merely
re!ocate congestion to another segment of the route. Since neither
!ocal or regional solutions are available to solve the freeway
congestion problem, the City finds that no feasible mitigation or
alternative exists to reduce these impacts to a less-than-
significant leve!.
Impact CIRC-17 concerns the overall interference to transit service
that would be caused by congestion anticipated at intersections and
road segments identified in Impacts CIRC-5 through 15. Impact
CIRC-17 also concerns the specific increased demand on the
Dumbarton Bridge bus service which is operating near capacity at
peak periods.
implementation~ of Mitigation Measure CIRC-17, which incorporates
the mitigation measures identified for Impacts CIRC-5,
6,7,8,9,11,14, and 15; plus the City’s continued participation in
the Dumbarton Bridge consortium; and the City’s support of future
rail service in the Dumbarton corridor, wil! combine to reduce the
overal! impacts to transit and the specific problem in the
Dumbarton corridor. However, because impacts after mitigation are
expected to remain signifcant at six of the nine impacted
intersections throughout the City, the interference with transit
service in the City will remain significant. In addition, because
the City of Palo Alto does not have direct control over transit
service in the Dumbarton corridor, it is unkown to what extent the
impacts to service in the corridor will or can be reduced through
expansion of existing bus service and/or the addition of rail
service. For these reasons, impacts associated with interference
of~transit service wil! be significant and unavoidable.
Impact CIRC-18 concerns the overall degradation of level of service
to bicyclists created by increased congestion in the City at
several intersections. Because traffic impacts at six of the nine
significantly impacted intersections would remain significant even
after mitigation, the delays to bicycles would also remain
significant. Therefore the City finds that there is no feasible
mitigation or alternative to reduce the impact to bicycle trave! to
less-than-significant levels.
B. Hydrology
impact HYDRO-I concerns the potential for increased runoff in the
San Francisquito, Matadero, Barton, and Adobe Creek watersheds due
to increased impervious surfaces resulting from cumulative
deve!opment. This im_mact could be reduced through implementation
980716 ape 0052027
11
of Mitigation Measure Hydro-! which calls for the provision of
adequate storm drainage systems in new development in coordination
with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Mateo County
F!ood Control District. However, because not al! of the potential
development causing the increases in runoff is within the City’s
jurisdiction, the impact is considered to be signifcant and
unavoidable. No feasible mitigation or alternative has been
identified at this time to reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level.
C. P~blic Service....s and. U~i!..it.ies
Impact PUBSERV-3 concerns the potential for increased runoff in the
San Francisquito, Hatadero, Barton, and Adobe Creek watersheds due
to increased impervious surfaces resulting from cummu!ative
development. This impact could be reduced through implementation
of Hitigation Heasure PUBSERV-3, which calls for the provision of
adequate storm drainage systems in new deve!opment in coordination
with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Hateo County
Flood Control District. However, because not al! of the potentia!
development causing the increases in runoff are within the City’s
jurisdiction, the impact is considered to be signifcant and
unavoidable. No feasible mitigation or alternative has been
identified at this time to reduce this impact to a less-than
signifcant level.
Impact PUBSERV-!0 concerns the anticipated increases in school
enrollment and the potentia! for overcrowding in the schools due to
the limitations of the School Impact Fee and the inability of
revenues generated by the fee to fully cover the cost of providing
additional classrooms. No feasible mitigation or alternative
exists to reduce this impact to a less-than-signifcant level.
SECTION S. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR
describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, or to
its location, that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of
the Project, and that the City Counci! has evaluated the
comparative merits of the alternatives (summarized below), and
rejected them in favor of the proposed Project. :
A. No Deve!opment.....A.~ternative.
This alternative would not make any changes to the existing
Comprehensive Plan. Growth and deve!opment in the City would
continue to be guided by the existing policies. Development within
specified change areas in the City would be expected to occur under
this alternative as presented in Table 40 of the Draft EIR.
This alternative is not desirable for the City because it would not
further the City’s desire to achieve the basic themes and visions
of the Comprehensive Plan implemented by proposed new policies and
programs. These themes include building community and
980716 ape 0052027
12
neighborhood, protecting community character, reducing reliance on
the automobile, increasing the housing supply, protecting and
repairing natura! features, balancing residential and commercial
interests, commitment to community participation and regional
leadership. In addition, the existing Comprehensive.Plan document
is over ten years old and is in need of updating to reflect current
City values and existing environmental, economic, and socia!
conditions.
B. LOW Develomment Alternative
This alternative would result in less development intensity at key
sites within identified change areas throughout the City as
described in detai! in Draft EIR Chapter 5, section B.I. This
reduced development intensity would result in reduced environmental
impacts in several impacts categories. However, this alternative
would not be desirable to the City because it would generate
approximately 800 fewer residential units than the proposed project
and, therefore, would not be as successful as the project in
achieving one of the key themes and visions of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Update, namely, increasing the supply of
housing.
C. High Develomment Alternative
This alternative would result in greater development intensity at
key Sites within identified change areas throughout the City as
described in detail in Draft EIR Chapter 5, section C.!. This
alternative would be beneficial to the City in that it would create
more residential units than the proposed project, and would allow
the construction of substantially more commercial deve!opment at
selected locations, thereby adding benefits to the local economy.
would create increased impacts relating to land use compatibility
conflicts; increased adverse impacts to operation of intersections,
increased traffic on residential and non-residential street
segments, delays for transit, pedestrians, and bicycles, greater
demands for parking, and increased traffic safety impacts;
increased noise a!ong major roadways; increased development exposed
to seismic and geo!ogic risks; increased drainage runoff due to
increased impervious surfaces; increased demands on public services
and facilities; increased demand for neighborhood park acreage;
greater impacts to vegetation and wildlife; greater probability of
impact to undiscovered cultura! resources; and greater visua!
impacts resulting from new development. The combination of the
increased environmenta! impacts associated with. this alternative
are considered by the City to be in excess of its benefits.
SECTION 6. State.men..~ of Ove..rriding Considerations. The
City Council finds that unavoidable environmental impacts of the
Project, described in Section 4 of this Resolution, are acceptable
when balanced against the bene~_ts of the Project, even after
980716 apc 0052027
13
giving greater weight to the City’s duty to avoid the environmental
impacts, and to protect the environment to the maximum extent
feasible. This determination is made based upon the following
factors and public benefits which are identified in the Fina! EIR
and record of proceedings on the Project:
A. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan will strengthen the
community and neighborhoods through specific policies and programs
intended to provide more !ocations for local interaction at
identified commercial and/or public "centers," protect
neighborhoods from commercia! .encroachment, and encourage
participation in community and government activities.
B. implementation of the Comprehensive Plan will protect community
character through specific polices and programs that will
facilitate the preservation of historic buildings, require the
development of new buildings with a scale and texture consistent
with the existing community, balance economic growth with
preserving residentia! neighborhoods, preserve and improve the
urban forest, and require high quality architecture and adherence
to urban design principles in new deve!opment.
C. implementation of the Comprehensive Plan update will reduce the
reliance on the automobile by encouraging the deve!opment of more
housing near transit, reducing the emphasis on traffic improvements
in favor of pedestrian and bicycle improvements, choosing
limitations on continuous roadway system capacity increases, and
providing a land use pattern less dependent on the automobile.
D. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update is anticipated
to allow for the construction of up to 2,449 new dwelling units in
the City, and associated Below Market Rate (BHR)units and in-lieu
fees to ~n~~~, t~= .~y’s assi=~ ~o~~~- needs.
Studies performed by the Association of Bay 9~ea Governments
(ABAG), summarized in the Housing Element Technical Document,
project a continuing need for construction of new housing to enable
the City to satisfy its fair share of regiona! housing demands.
ABAG studies project a specific need for construction of 1,244 new
housing units in the City by the year 2002, including 783 units for
be!ow-moderate income residents The project will help meet the
ABAG goals for above-moderate units, and the BHR units and in-lieu
fees will help meet the City’s housing obligations under State law
for providing units for low and moderate income households.
E. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan Update will implement
severa! new policies and programs to further protect and repair
natural features of the City, particularly riparian corridors along
the City’s severa! creeks, and the preservation and improvement of
City’s urban forest.
980716 ape 0052027
3_4
F. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan will balance the
interests of the residential and commercia! communities within the
City. This balance will be achieved through severa! policies and
programs intended to encourage continued economic growth in the
City by encouraging businesses that do not detract from residential
neighborhoods, and by encouraging businesses that contribute to the
community by virtue of .the need for a specific service, physical
improvements to a particular site, or increased tax revenue to the
City.
G. Implementation of the Comprehesive Plan update will facilitate
increased public participation through several policies and
programs intended to provide increased distribution of information
from City Hal! and decision making bodies, increased awareness of
neighborhood and community groups, increased awareness of
government processes, improved goverrmLent processes, and~increased
emphasis on public service. Implementation of the Comprehensive
P!an Update will also facilitate continuation of the City’s desire
to provide regional leadership on a variety of issues through the
im_mlementation of severa! policies and programs illustrating the
City’s committment to participation in discussions and programs of
regiona! importance.
SECTION 7. !mpa~.<S......Found Not To Be Significant. The City
finds that the Final EIR neither expressly identifies nor contains
any substantia! evidence identifying significant environmental
effects of the Project. with respect to any of the environmental
impacts dismissed through the scoping process (as described in
Chapter i, Section D. of the Draft Environmental Impact Report).
SECTION 8. The City has revised the Comprehensive Plan
following City Council review of the Public Review Draft, public
testimony on the Public Review Draftr the n~ and Final
Environmenta! Impact reports, and the recommended changes to the
P~blic Review Draft by the Planning Commission. These revisions to
the Public Review Draft of the Comprehensive Plan, which are listed
in CMR: 484:97 and the minutes of the December 2, 1997 City counci!
Meeting, would not result in any significant adverse environmental
impacts different from or greater than those identified in the
Final Environ_mental impact Report.
SECTION 9. Substantial evidence supporting each and every
finding made herein is contained in the Final EIR and in the record
of proceedings on the Project.
SECTION !0. The Council finds that there is no substantial
evidence to support a conclusion that significant new information
has been added to the Final EIR so as to warrant recirculation of
the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5. This finding is based upon al! the
information presented in the Fina! EIR and record of proceedings.
980716 apc 0052027
15
SECTION ii. The City Council finds that the public
interest, health, safety and welfare of both Pa!o Alto and the
surrounding region require amendment of the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan as set forth in the attached 1998-2010 City of Pa!o Alto
Comprehensive Plan and Land Use and Circulation Map. The City
Counci! hereby amends the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by adopting
the attached 1998-2010 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
Land Use and Circulation Hap as shown on Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: July 20, 1998
AYES:EAKINS, KNISS, MOSSAR,OJAKIAN,ROSENBAUM,SCHNEIDER,WHEELER
NOE S :
ABSENT : FAZZINO, HUBER
ABSTENTIONS :
ATTEST
APPRI
Y
A,,.~ ~PROVE D:
H~’or ~
’~nterim Director of Planning
and Co--unity Enviro~ent
16
EXHIBIT B
Exhibit B, the Bicycle Transportation Plan, was distributed to Council Members,
Libraries and Newspapers. The Plan can be viewed on line at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/bike, or you may view a copy in the Transportation
Division office at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor, Palo Alto, CA.
TO:
ATTACHMENT C
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
~ FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:MAY 19, 2003 CMR:281:03
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLANSUBJECT:
R~COMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that Council
approve in concept the attached bicycle transportation plan and direct staff to prepare final
environmental documents and a resolution for Council approval for final action, returning
on the consent calendar. Staff and the PTC differ on only one element of the plan:
The PTC recommended Action Step 2.4 in the Implementation Plan, which reads
"Eliminate sidewalk bike paths from the City’s bikeway network and remove existing
signs where they exist", be revised to read "Phase out sidewalk bike paths where safe
alternatives are provided." Staff does not support including sidewalk bike paths in the
City’s bikeway network for safety reasons, and recommends maintaining the current
language in the Plan.
BACKGROUND
In 1999, Council authorized funding in the operating budget for preparation of a
comprehensive bicycle transportation plan study pursuant to the policies and programs in
the Transportation Element of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. The firm of Wilbur
Smith Associates,a national transportation planning and engineering firm with offices in
San Francisco, was selected to work with staff and the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory
Committee (PABAC) to develop the plan.
The draft bicycle transportation plan (Plan) builds upon the bicycle transportation policies of
the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, assesses the strengths and deficiencies of the
existing Palo Alto bikeway system, and identifies bicycle facility needs for the future.
The study process included extensive community input from stakeholder groups, including
the Chamber of Commerce, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), the PTA, as
well as meetings with other local agency representatives, direct input from cyclists at local
bike shops, and a community workshop. The plan was reviewed by PABAC and the
City/School Traffic Safety Committee, and was the subject of one study session and two
CMR:281:03 Page 1 of 8
public hearings of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). Subsequent to the
PTC meetings, the plan was revised and finalized to incorporate the input received.
DISCUSSION
The plan includes six chapters: Introduction, Existing Conditions, Needs Assessment and
Analysis, Recommended Bikeway Network, Bicycle Support Facilities and Programs and
Implementation Plan. It addresses the following broad objectives: to serve bicyclists of all
levels and abilities; to improve safety; to improve connectivity and eliminate gaps; to
improve intermodal connectivity, and create the opportunity to reduce auto dependency.
Recommended Bikeways
The recommended bikeway network doubles the number of miles of bikeways in Palo Alto,
including paths, lanes, routes and bike boulevards (See Chapter 4, Figure 6, of the plan). If
fully implemented, the bikeway network would consist of 12 miles of off-road bike paths
and trails and 76. miles of on-road bike lanes and bike routes. Key features of the plan are
the expansion of the network of bicycle boulevards, 7 new or improved bicycle
undercrossings or bridges at barriers to bicycle travel (e.g., creeks, railroad tracks, etc.), new
bike lanes on arterial streets, and spot improvements at difficult and problematic
intersections for cyclists. This network responds to community priorities to improve safe
bike routes to schools, removing obstacles to travel and improving safety for bicyclists on
major streets and intersections.
Network of Bike Boulevards. The plan recommends quadrupling the number of miles of
bike boulevards to 12 miles, on up to 8 new bike boulevards on local and collector streets:
Homer Avenue, Matadero. Avenue, Greer Road, Park Boulevard, Everett Street, Ross Road,
Maybell and Donald Avenues and Melv{lle/Guinda. These bike boulevards were largely
designed to improve bike safety for students commuting to elementary, middle, and high
schools.
Bike Lanes and Bike Routes on Arterial Streets. The plan recognizes that skilled cyclists use
arterial streets despite heavier traffic volumes because they often are the most direct, time-
efficient routes for both intra-city and inter-city trips. Such streets need to have bike lanes
or wider curb lanes for bikes to share with vehicles and need to have traffic signals that are
responsive to bicycles. The plan incorporates the recommendation of the Draft E1 Camino
Real Schematic Design Study to accommodate bike lanes on E1 Camino Real.
New Crossings of Railroad Tracks. Railroadtracks are a significant barrier to bicycle travel.
Near bicycle undercrossings at Everett (consistent with the Palo Alto Interrnodal Transit
Center Plan), Homer Avenue (scheduled for construction this summer) and in south Palo
Alto in the vicinity of Matadero Creek between California Avenue and East Meadow Drive
are proposed. In view of the plans tO greatly increase the number of trains and initiate Baby
Bullet express service along the Caltrain line, further study and consideration of full
vehicular, bike and pedestrian grade separations may need to be explored.
CM_R:281:03 Page 2 of 8
Spot hnprovements at Major h, tersections. Spot improvements at eight key intersections
are designed to improve safety at particularly difficult and complex crossings identified by
the City/School Traffic Safety Committee. These intersections are along existing bicycle
routes where better design would enhance safety and access for student cyclists and skilled
cyclists.
Emphasis on Safety Education and Promotion Programs
The plan emphasizes the critical importance of ongoing safety education and encouragement
programs for bicyclists of all ages, as well as for motorists. It also supports the continuation
of the City’s cooperative efforts with the PAUSD to provide safety education programs at
the elementary, middle and secondary levels, and to offer education programs to the
community at-large through the City’s Alternative Transportation Modes progam.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The PTC reviewed the plan at a study session on May 15 and held public hearings on June
5, 2002 and August 14, 2002. (Refer to the two PTC reports and meeting minutes,
attached~) At the conclusion of its deliberations, the PTC voted 7-0 to recommend that the
plan be forwarded to the City Council with their enthusiastic recommendation.
Over the course of the PTC review of the plan, several issues were raised by individual
Commissioners, including: the trade-offs associated with designating bike lanes on arterial
streets; the need to incorporate park paths into the bikeway network; the need to emphasize
the plan is not a static document and will be updated and amended as needed in the future;
the removal of sidewalk bike paths from the City’s bikeway network; and the need to
identify future improvements at the AlmaJCharleston and Alma/Meadow intersections and
grade crossings at the railroad tracks.
There was substantial public testimony at PTC hearings in support of incorporating bike
facilities on arterial streets and, in particular, E1 Camino Real. At the time of the PTC
meetings, the plan designated E1 Camino Real as a bike route (i.g. bike route signs, but no
striped bike lanes). Commissioners expressed reservations based on concern that providing
space for bicyclists on E1 Camino Real would be to the detriment of space for pedestrians
and vehicle parking. Similarly, individual Commission members expressed concern that the
installation of bike lanes on Middlefield Road would diminish the carrying capacity for
vehicular traffic.
Subsequent to the PTC deliberation on the Bike Plan, the Draft Schematic Plan for E1
Camino Real was completed and reviewed by the PTC. The schematic plan succeeds in
reconfiguring roadway space to provide wider sidewalks, wider medians, bicycle lanes and
vehicle parking. The PTC endorsed the E1 Camino Real plan at its meeting on March 12,
2003.
CMR:281:03 Page 3 of 8
Commissioners also requested that the plan more explicitly reference the Comprehensive
Plan program that calls for the "development and periodic update of a comprehensive
bicycle plan". It is not intended to be a static plan. As facilities are built or fu~her
feasibility studies determine the viability of specific projects, the plan should be updated..
The Bike Plan is intended to guide and promote bicycling and to ensure that the needs of
bicyclists are considered in al! matters affecting bicycle transportation.
Staff has incorporated most of the PTC recommended changes into the final plan presented
to Council:
¯Park paths have been included in the Recommended Bikeway Network (Figure 6).
¯The bikeway on E1 Camino Real has been reclassified from bike route to bike lane in the
Recommended Bikeway Network (Figure 6).
¯Language has been incorporated into the Bike Plan Introduction (Page 1-1) to indicate
the plan is subject to periodic update and modification, as stipulated in the
Comprehensive Plan.
¯Additional text and emphasis on bicycle safetyeducation, encouragement and promotion
have been incorporated into the Implementation Plan action elements (Chapter 6).
In the Implementation Plan, a new Action Step (Step 3.7) has been added to address
enhanced cross-departmental coordination on construction activities that impact bicycle
safety. (Chapter 6).
¯In the Implementation Plan, a new Section 8 has been related to environmental
protections. (Chapter 6)
Alma/Meadow and Alma Charleston Intersections
Commissioner Burt recommended that Figure 6 identify the need for spot improvements at
these two intersections which are key school commute routes. Staff has not incorporated
these into the plan at this time. Currently, two studies, the South Palo Alto School Commute
Safety Study and the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Study, are underway and will address
conditions and potential improvements at these locations. Staff recommends deferring
adding these locations to the plan pending the completion of these two studies. The specific
recommended improvements at these intersections, if any, would be incorporated into the
next update of the Bicycle Plan.
Sidewalk Bike Paths
In the Implementation Plan (Chapter 6), Action Step 2.4 states: "Eliminate sidewalk bike
paths from the City’s bikeway network and remove existing signs where they exist."
Commissioners recommended that the wording be amended to state: "Phase out sidewalk
bike paths where safe alternatives are provided." Staff recommends maintaining the existing
text and has not modified the text in the final plan.
CMR:281:03 Page 4 of 8
The elimination of sidewalk bike path signs and this classification of bikeway from the
bikeway system would not prohibit or preclude bike riding on sidewalks on arterial streets
like Alma, Embarcadero and Middlefield by young riders or adults. Bicycle riding would
still be legal and cyclists would be able to chose where they want to ride, on the street or on
the sidewalk. By removing the sidewalk bike path signs, however, City policy would
support the position that sidewalks are not appropriate "designated" bicycle facilities. State
bikeway design guidelines, as well as the consensus professional transportation engineering
practice, discourage the designation of sidewalks as bike facilities because they are
intrinsically pedestrian facilities, and sidewalk bike riding can increase the potential for
conflicts between bicycles and motor vehicles at driveways and intersections as well as with
pedestrians and fixed objects. This subject was thoroughly evaluated in an article entitled
Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Journal in September 1994, and based on actual bicycle
collision records in Palo Alto. The authors’ analysis concluded that bicyclists riding on
sidewalks are at 1.8 times greater risk of crashes with motor vehicles that bicyclists riding in
the roadway.
Funding has been included in the Capital Improvement Program budget under existing CIP
Project 19524, Bikeway System Improvements, for the removal of sidewalk bike path signs
on all streets with sidewalk bike paths: Embarcadero and Middlefield Roads, Alma Street,
and segments of San Antonio and Charleston Roads. The wording of Action Step 2.4
reflects this existing policy direction from the City Council.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
As described in the June 5 report to the Planning and Transportation Commission, the plan
is consistent with a number of Comprehensive Plan policies and programs in support of
Goal T-3: development of facilities, programs and services that encourage and promote
walking and bicycling.
Specifically, Program T-18 calls for the development and periodic update of a
comprehensive bicycle plan, and Program T-19 calls for the development and
implementation of a bicycle facilities improvement program that prioritizes critical
pedestrian and bicycle links to parks, schools, retail centers, and civic facilities.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The cost to build out the entire recommended bike network has been estimated in the plan to
be up to $37 million (based only on unit construction cost assumptions). The total estimated
cost to implement the High Priority projects listed on Table 6-3 oft he plan is approximately
$23 million. The four proposed grade separations at the Caltrain tracks account for
approximately $20 million of this total, and three of those projects ($15 million) will be
funded largely from regional, federal and state sources. The Homer Undercrossing (CIP
10121) has committed funding of $5.1 million, mainly from state and federal grants. The
project is out to bid and staff will return to Council in June with the award of contract and
CMR:281:03 Page 5 of 8
final accounting of the funding. The Everett Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing will be
implemented in conjunction with the Intermodal Transit Center and/or Caltrain service
upgrades. The California Avenue Undercrossing will likely be funded with substantial
commitment of funding from Caltrain and the VTA Bicycle Expenditure Program. Funding
sources for new grade separations in South Palo Alto have not yet been identified, but staff
will vigorously pursue grant opportunities for such a future project.
It is very important to note any transportation master plan, whether region-wide or
community-specific, requires many years and multiple funding sources; not all of which
may be available in any given year. Palo Alto has been successful in ~ecuring outside grant
funding for bicycle projects to reduce or eliminate cost to the General Fund or Street
Improvement Fund. Over the past 20 years, Palo Alto has received over $8 million in grant
funds for bicycle projects from outside agencies (See Appendix B of the plan), matched by
approximately $1.0 million in City funds.
Appendix M in the plan identifies variety of funding strategies and opportunities to fund
these and other high priority projects:
¯Grant Funding from other Public Agencies--Adoption of the Bicycle Transportation
Plan will enable Palo Alto to qualify for additional State .Bicycle Transportation Fund
funding grants that the City has not been able to access previously.
¯Private Foundation Grants--The City could partner with local non-profit groups to fund
capital projects or single programs or event promotions.
¯Traffic Calming Projects--The City’s neighborhood traffic calming program for local
and collector streets, currently funded at $100,000 per year, could incorporate many of
the recommended bicycle improvements. Many of the recommended bicycle boulevards
are on local and collector streets where traffic calming projects could create safe
conditions for bicycling. Similarly, some of the recommended bike lanes on arterial
streets could be developed in conjunction with future residential arterial traffic calming
projects.
¯Traffic Safety and Safe Routes to School Grants-tThe State of California offers grants
for bicycle and pedestrian traffic safety projects through the Office Of Traffic Safety and
Safe Routes to Schools through Caltrans. Many of the recommended bicycle boulevards
and arterial street bikeways are on direct routes to school and should be eligible for these
funds.
¯Citywide Traffic Impact Fee--The nexus study for the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee will
consider and incorporate recommended bicycle network improvements in the
development of the proposed traffic impact fee.
¯Private Developer Fees and Mitigations--Through the development review process,
private developers may be required to make or fund off-site improvements as conditions
of approval.
CMR:281:03 Page 6 of 8
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the 1998-2010 Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan discussed the impacts related to the development of bicycle
improvements and adopted a statement of overriding considerations, finding that the
unavoidable environmental impacts of the project were acceptable when balanced against
the benefits, even after giving greater weight to the City’s duty to avoid the environmental
impacts and to protect the environment to the maximum extent feasible. One of the factors
and public benefits identified in the Final EIR for the project was: ~that the implementation
of the Comprehensive Plan update will reduce the reliance on the automobile by
encouraging the development of more housing near transit, reducing the emphasis on traffic
improvements in favor of pedestrian and bicycle improvements, choosing limitations so
continuous roadway system capacity increases, and providing a land use pattern less
dependent on the automobile.’~
Staff has reviewed the potential impacts of the Bicycle Transportation Plan and compared it
to the environmental analysis completed in the Comprehensive Plan EIR and has concluded
that the changes are considered minor under CEQA, and that the plan is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan EIR findings. Staff proposes to prepare an addendum to the Final EIR
prepared for the Comprehensive Plan and return to Council with a resolution with the
adoption of the final Bicycle Transportation Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
A. 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan (Limited Distribution. Plan may be viewed on the
City’s website at www.cit¥ofpaloalto.or~’bike or in the Transportation Division Office)
B. Relevant Sections of Resolution 7780 Adopting the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan
C. PTC Report dated June 5, 2002
D. PTC Report dated July 17, 2002
E. Minutes of the PTC meeting of June 5, 2002
F. Minutes of the PTC meeting of August 14, 2002
CMR:281:03 Page 7 of 8
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
GANLE LIKENS
Transportation Projects Manager
./~//STEVE EMSLIE
./’~ Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Assistant City Manager
cc"Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
City/School Traffic Safety Committee
PTA Safety Representatives
Mary Frances Callan, Superintendent of Schools
People who submitted correspondence to Planning and Transportation Commission
CMR:281:03 Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT D
Special Meeting
May 19, 2003
Discussion of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
Request to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for an
Investigation of a Continuing Program (CAP) Section 205 Project .........3
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................................................5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES .........................................................................5
Request for Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance Authorizing
Receipt and Expenditure in the Amount of $14,000 from the Friends of
the Palo Alto Public Library and $54,482 from the Public Library Fund .. 5
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to File an
Application for Fiscal Year 2003-04 Transportation Development Act
Funds for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects .........................................6
2A.Resolution Approving Prohibition of Parking between 11:00 p.m. and
5:00 a.m. every day on Encina Avenue, Wells Avenue and the 100
Block of Page Mill Road ..................................................................6
Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and McCain Traffic Supply, Inc.
in the Amount of $1,384,230 for Implementation of an Advanced
Transportation Management System ................................................6
t Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and MetLife in the Amount of
$700,000 for the City of Palo AIto’s Group Life, Accidental Death and
Dismemberment (AD&D), and Long Term Insurance Disability (LTD)
Plans ...........................................................................................6
Recommendation from the Historic Resources Board at the request of
the owner, 425 Tasso Investors, LLC, to designate a residential
building to the City of Palo AIto’s Historic Inventory in Category 2
pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 (Historic Preservation
Ordinance .................................................................................... 6
6.Rejection of Proposals Received on October 22, 2002 for Professional
Park Design Services for South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) Park .............6
05/19/03 1
MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Council Member
Morton, to accept the staff recommendation to approve and authorize the
Mayor to execute the amendment to extend the term of the consulting
agreement with Curtis Williams for services related to the Zoning Ordinance
Update (ZOU) project and to increase compensation from $40,000 to
$60,000 in the current fiscal year, and an additional $60,000 through June
2004.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
Council Member Kleinberg noted that it was brought to her attention there
was a new Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) rule adopted for
conflicts of interests that an explanation must be given when a Council
Member was not participating in an item on the agenda. The reason she did
not participate in Item No. 7 was because of a possible financial interest of
her husband’s former law firm being affected by a contract with Moses and
Singer, the New York Enron Counsel.
The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at
9:25 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
14.Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation
Subject: Eugenia Weiner v. City of Palo Alto, et al; SCC CV796572
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
15.Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation
Subject: Maria Makela v. City of Palo Alto, et al.; SCC CV812890
Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing
litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 14 and 15.
Mayor Mossar announced that no reportable action was taken on
Agenda Item Nos. 14 and 15.
RECESS: 9:25 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
11.From Planning and Transportation Commission - Bicycle Transportation
Plan
Chief Transportation Official Joseph Kott said the Bicycle Transportation Plan
had the support of the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC). Palo
Alto had a long tradition in bicycle planning and was widely regarded as one
05/19/03 14
of the country’s most "bikeable" cities. The League of American Bicyclists
named Palo Alto as one of two gold level winners and the best in California.
Palo Alto had the nation’s first bicycle boulevard and bike/commuter valet
parking facility at the Caltrain station. The City had been successful in
obtaining grants and the long-term support of the past Mayors and Councils
had helped in the effort to get outside funding The City would like to fund
some of those improvements through the future citywide traffic fee. There
was strong support in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) for enhancing
and improving the bikeway system. Any transportation network needed
more than north/south routes. At minimum, it needed an east/west route to
intersect with the north/south. A comprehensive network of bicycle
boulevards would be desirable. Motorists needed education about the law,
that bicyclists belonged and were legal on streets; the exceptions were
posted on certain sections of California freeways. The bottom line would be
to reduce the dependence on the single occupant automobile with an
environmental and efficient mode of travel. The advice received from the
Bicycle Advisory Committee, the public, and the P&TC would be maintenance
of the current bike lanes, improved routes to schools, education of
motorists, and more bike lanes.
Transportation Projects Manager Gayle Likens displayed the existing bikeway
network. She said the plan proposed a more complex network to double
the on-road facilities when fully implemented and increase the number of
off-road trails~ by 50 percent. The foundation of the network was the
number of proposed bicycle boulevards. The plan showed new major
north/south routes and new east/west connectors. Improvements were
proposed for the south end of the Bryant Street Boulevard. Four major
under-crossings and gap closures had been proposed. The network of bike
facilities needed improvement on the collector and residential arterials, as
well as major arterials. The non-residential arterial street system needed
improvement and bike lanes. The result of discussions with School
Commute, City School Traffic Safety Committee, and PTA representatives
were strengthened to recognize the deficiencies at many intersections. The
Implementation Plan identified steps in maintenance, new construction,
replacement of facilities, and education and promotion activities. There were
grant opportunities available with an approved Bicycle Plan.
Bunny Good, P.O. Box 824, Menlo Park, said she was upset about the
potential of spending $37 million on the Bicycle Plan.
Paul Goldstein, Chair of Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Commission, 1024
Emerson, stated the seven high priority bicycle boulevards listed had an
estimated total combined cost of $200,000.
Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, noted there were sections on El
Camino Real where bike travel was unavoidable and the Homer Street
undercrossing proposal would assist bicyclists.
05/19/03 15
Penny EIIson, 513 El Capitan Place, said she was glad the plan was moving
forward, that it covered streets that were busy, and the gaps were being
closed up.
Ann Crichton, a Traffic Safety Representative with Ohlone and part of the
PTA, 1062 Cardinal Way, said she supported the plan because it was a long-
term plan that proposed improvements and enhancements to the cycling
network.
Joan Marx, 827 LaPara, asked the Council and knowledgeable cyclists to
combine their expertise and cycling knowledge to resolve a safety issue at
Terman Middle School.
Kathy Durham, 2039 Dartmouth Street, commended the process.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Council Member
Kleinberg, to approve in concept the staff and Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC) recommendation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan and
direct staff to prepare final environmental documents and a resolution for
Council approval for final action, returning on the Consent Calendar,
Furthermore, to approve the PTC recommended Action Step 2,4 in the
Implementation Plan, which reads "Eliminate sidewalk bike paths from the
City’s bikeway network and remove existing signs where they exist," to be
revised to read "Phase out sidewalk bike paths where safe alternatives are
provided,"
AMENDMENT: Council Member Morton moved to concentrate on developing
safe thoroughfares that paralleled high traffic corridors.
Council Member Kleinberg spoke to her second to the motion. She wanted
safety to be a strong and repeated mandate in the Comp Plan and that there
were multiple funding sources, especially grants from the State of California
to accomplish this plan.
AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Kishimoto wanted to see the reversal of the decrease of
children bicycling to school.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Council
Member Morton, to prioritize ,implementation of the Bicycle Boulevard
Network,
Council Member Kishimoto said it would be low cost and a highly effective
way to improve bicycling throughout the City.
05/19/03 16
Council Member Kleinberg asked if there were other categorical bike routes
that served schools. She felt the priority should be school routes.
Mr. Kott said there would be opportunities to do other things in a timely
manner including proposed development and redevelopment as mitigations
to the effects of development proposals.
Council Member Kishimoto said she had not intended that others be
neglected as opportunities came along.
AMENDMENT PASSED 5-4, Freeman, Kleinberg, Mayor Mossar, Ojakian
"no."
AMENDMENT: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Freeman, to
add the implementation of the Bike Master Plan as a key milestone of the
Council Top 5 priorities.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison stated she understood Council
Member Kishimoto’s amendment suggested to return with a proposal for
what could be done toward implementing the Bike Master Plan in the next
two-year budget.
Council Member Morton asked that City Staff be directed to return with what
was doable in the next two-year cycle.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to direct staff to return to the Council with a
doable milestone related to the implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan in
the next two years.
Council Member Kishimoto asked how the plan got translated into the Public
Works specifications.
Mr. Kott replied the Public Works Department would be advised as to the
design specifications.
Council Member Kishimoto said she would like Council
incorporate the Bicycle Master Plan Best Practices into
specifications within in the next twelve months.
to direct staff to
the Public Works
City Manager Frank Benest said he was not aware of what it entailed.
Council Member Kishimoto said she understood staff would report back as to
how Public Works evaluated that and how it would be implemented.
Mayor Mossar asked if that would be part of the Implementation Plan.
05/19/03 17
Mr. Benest replied it would be.
Mr. Kott said his department referred to the best practices document in the
plan and would advise Public Works.
Council Member Lytle questioned how pedestrian needs were integrated into
the plan.
Mr. Kott said the bike boulevards guaranteed safer streets to cross and
undercrossings or overcrossings for cyclists would also be available to
pedestrians.
Council Member Lytle said the P&TC recommended phasing out sidewalk
pathways, which was not as safe as what staff recommended, which was the
elimination of sidewalk pathways.
Council Member Burch said phasing out would be where there were safe
alternatives.
Mayor Mossar disagreed.
Council Member Lytle said she wanted to continue. She felt the concept from
the updated plan gave the pedestrians some treatment and all of the
Compensation Plan policies should be considered as to how they relate to
pedestrians and other modes of transportation.
Council Member Kleinberg clarified her seconding the motion; that sidewalk
pathways be removed when it was considered to be safe.
Mayor Mossar believed staff should speak to their recommendation, which
would be different from the P&TC’s.
Mr. Kott reported as the sidewalk bike paths were removed, there would be
education provided on alternatives and parallel alternatives.
Council Member Burch wanted comments on the number of bridges and
tunnels in the north versus the number in the south of Oregon Expressway.
Mr. Kott said only one bridge and/or tunnel was proposed from Oregon
Expressway to San Antonio Road. The concentration in the north had to do
with attracting outside funding for the northern under-crossings because of
the proximity to Caltrain and a multi-modal funding from Federal and State
transportation funds.
Council Member Butch noted school children needed to cross El Camino Real
and Alma Street in a responsible way.
05/19/03 18
Council Member Freeman said the Bicycle Transportation Plan would be
reviewed periodically, and she wanted to make an amendment to add in the
Charleston Corridor Bicycle Study solution immediately upon adoption.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER that the Council add in the Charleston Corridor
Bicycle Study solution immediately upon adoption of the Bicycle Master Plan.
Council Member Morton wanted to know if that were a duplication of what
had already been set in motion, as part of the traffic study.
Mr. Kott said the identified solution to come out of the plan should be given
priority.
Mayor Mossar said the motion had already been amended by including that
the Charleston Corridor Bicycle Study solution be added immediately upon
adoption of the Bicycle Master Plan.
Council Member Freeman said the proposed budget had removed the school
bicycle safety training funding.
Mr. Kott responded the school bike safety training was co-funded by the City
of Palo Alto (current and last fiscal year) and the Palo Alto Unified School
District (PAUSD). He believed the School District would continue the
arrangement, but the City’s portion would shift.
Council Member Freeman asked that it would be funded, but from a different
source than the General Fund.
Mr. Kott answered that funds would be eliminated from the General Fund, as
a budget cut.
Council Member Freeman said that school children would play a big role.
She stated that decisions made earlier could have adverse impacts to
students traveling into the Midtown area. She queried why Forest Avenue
was not considered as the Bike Boulevard instead of Homer Avenue.
Mr. Kott answered that the Homer Avenue under-crossing was planned as a
direct access to Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). He felt the best
interim solution on Homer Avenue would be to create a one block two-way
section of the last block of Homer Avenue between High and Alma Streets,
and also a two-way one block section of High Street between Forest and
Channing Avenues.
Council Member Freeman said the interim eastbound solution for bicyclists
could be Channing Avenue as an alternate.
05119103 19
Mr. Kott said Homer Avenue would become a two-way operation.
Council Member Freeman asked that a jog be considered to Channing
Avenue.
Mr. Kott replied the jog would be considered in the interest of safety.
Council Member Morton would not support the motion.
Vice Mayor Beecham said staff explained the priorities of the items that
would go forward for which money was found.
Al~lEl~il:)l~lEl~lT-" Vice Mayor Beecham moved, seconded by Council Member
Ojakian, to revert to the staff recommendation to eliminate sidewalk
bikeway paths from the City’s bikeway network and remove existing signs
where they exist.
Mayor Mossar requested a vote on the amendment.
Council Member Lytle questioned the difference between the two
recommendations.
Mr. Kott responded that staff would complete the projects as quickly and
safely as possible.
Council Member Morton questioned that elimination of sidewalk use for
bicycles would force students onto busy roads.
Mr. Kott said the signs indicated a sidewalk bike path would be removed;
however, sidewalks could still be used for cycling. Adept cyclists would use
busy roads and younger school children would be educated about safer road
alternatives.
Mayor Mossar stated the City of Palo Alto did not want sidewalks as part of
its official bicycle network.
Council Member Freeman said the phased-in approach seemed safer for
school children.
Mr. Kott replied sidewalk bike paths were not safe and the City should not
represent them as safe.
Council Member Freeman said alternate routes were not as’ direct as the
busy road route. The amendment stated the City’s position was that it was
unsafe for anyone to ride on sidewalks.
05/19/03 20
Mr. Kott said staff indicated it was not safe to encourage the use of
sidewalks as bike paths.
Council Member Freeman said that the alternative would be to have children
ride in the streets.
AMENDMENT PASSED 5-3, Burch, Freeman, Morton "no."
Mayor Mossar said Palo Alto needed to look at connectivity with neighboring
cities.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 9-0.
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Council Member
Kleinberg, to hear Item No. 13 ahead of Item No. 12
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Morton " not participating."
PUBLIC HEARINGS
13.Public Hearinq: The City Council would consider an application by
Bellomo Architects on behalf of the City of Palo Alto (property owner),
County of Santa Clara (leaseholder) and Dr. Jim Brandt (fixed-base
operator) for Site and Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit to
allow construction of a 1,643 square foot building, adjacent to an
existing airport building located at 1903 Embarcadero Road
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote presented a staff report regarding the Site
and Design application and accompanying conditional use permit.
Mayor Mossar asked about the conflict between the water, the wildlife, and
the Airport.
Ms. Grote said water features did not become issues until they became
greater than an acre in size.
Mayor Mossar declared the Public Hearing open at 11:17 p.m.
Bunny Good, P.O. Box 824, Menlo Park, said a tenant had cut down the
jasmine hedge at the Airport.
Mayor Mossar declared the Public Hearing closed at 11:20 p.m.
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Council Member
Kleinberg, to approve the site and design review for the construction of a
new +/-1,600-square-foot building at the Palo Alto Airport, located in the
05/19/03 21
Palo Alto Baylands; and the conditional use permit to allow a general
business office use to occupy the new building.
Council Member Burch said he was pleased the Planning and Transportation
Commission (P&TC) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) gave full
approval.
Council Member Kleinberg believed it to be a good plan architecturally, which
would generate revenue and not impact the wetlands.
Council Member Kishimoto questioned if the tenants would be able to
sublease the property for non-airport use.
Ms. Grote.said the Lease Agreement would need to be looked at.
Dr. Jim Brandt said the lease was restricted to Airport-related uses and any
tenant would be approved by County Airports Division.
Council Member Kishimoto discouraged any more building in the area
because of the known natural hazards.
Council Member Lytle said the public facility zone protects the uses from
being privately used in the future.
City Auditor Sharon Erickson commented the sales tax benefit accruing to
the City from aircraft sales had been considerably less than represented to
the P&TC. She noted that planes sold in Palo Alto and delivered out-of-state
were non-taxable.
Council Member Kleinberg mentioned there was a Master Plan for the
Airport, which includes some construction.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
12.Adoption of a Resolution Appointing a Council Member to the Board of
the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Council Member
Morton, to approve the staff recommendation that the City Council appoint
Vice Mayor Beecham as a voting member of the board of directors of the Bay
Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency.
Resolution 8294 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Appointing a Council Member as a Voting Member of the Board of Directors
of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency"
05/19/03 22