Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-05 City Council Summary Minuteslily Taio r o IOJ 1132., FALC A:?G CA:-�iik•..A September 6, 1688 17 TO: Palo Alto Planning Commission FROM: Carol Jansen, Chief Planning Official SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT EIR OF UNIVERSITY CIRCLE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, EAST LO L Atteached is a draft letter to the Redevelopment Agency of East Palo Alto in resvonse to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the University Circle Redevelopment Plan in the City of East Palo Alto. The letter contains general comments with an Appendix A of page -specific comments on the DEIR. At the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1988, staff will be prepared to answer questions regarding our convents and will provide additional information regarding the visual impacts of tige proposed project. EDAW, an architectural and urban design firm retained by the City, will present a graphic analysis indicating the visual impacts, at various locations in the City of Palo Alto, of a 275 -font -tall bailding in the Project area. In order to respond prior to the shortened 30 -day review period of the DEIR, the City Council will hold a hearing on the DEIR on September 12, 1988. Both Planning Commission and City Council comments will be incorporated in the final letter to the City of East Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency, which must be submitted' by September 16, 1988. CJ:TK:jw Attachments: Draft Letter to the Redevelopment Agency of East Palo Alto Appendix A (Specific page -by -page DEIR comments) Appendix 8 (Newspaper articles on the Redevelopment Plan. project) DRAFT DRAFT September 6, 1988 Dr. Virgus Streets, Redevelopment Director East Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency 2415 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Dr. Streets: The City of Palo Alta appreciates the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the University Circle Redevelopment Plan. While the allowable review period has been relatively short, the City has undertaken a fairly extensive review of the draft EIR as submitted. In presenting these comments, we have emphasized the discussion of the more general issues in the boy of this letter. A more detailed com- mentary on specific points, particularly those related to traffic, emer- gency services, and infrastructure impacts, are attached to this letter in order of their appearance in the EIR text. All comments are to be considered as the City's formal response to the DEIR. General comments are listed below in I -IX. In general, Palo Alto submits that the DE IP does not comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Celifornia Public Feso.rces Code Sections 21000, et s ("CEQA") in the most am fund ental respects. It does not provia anyr basis for evaluating the environmental impacts of the redevelopment of this area, because it systematically side-steps any disclosure or evaluation of the specific construction project that is under discussion for this area. In addi- tion, the DEIR fails entirely to meet the requirements of CEQA to analyze all reasonable alternatives to the project, The DEIR in fact contains only a page and one half section devoted to "alternatives", which does not reap y consider any concrete alternatives. Nor is there any analysis of the 'no project* alternative. It is clear that the DEIR's review of differing levels of intensity of development under the redevelopment plan proposed fir _adoption cannot itself serve as the *alternatives' to be analyzed, and the DEIR does not claim: that they are. It is the City of Palo Alto's opinion that the EIR must be recirculated is draft fora. with consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives, including at a minimum an . analysis of alternative sites for. the develop - t project attich provides the impetus for this proposed redevelopment plan and an analysis of lower densities for this site, such as those recommended by Palo Alto in its original scoping comments. DRAFT In addition, the DEIR is inadequate in failing to evaluate the likeli- hood that numerous mitigation measures will in fact be adopted in the futur?, and accordingly provides no basis for the conclusion that the environmental impacts cf the project discussed in the DEIR will be miti- gated to levels of insignificance. assuming those mitigation measures are ultimately implemented. Nor does it provide any foundation for the claim that only air quality impacts remain at levels of significance and thus require findings of overriding consideration. Finally. the DEIR is insufficient in its analysis of cumulative impacts and the growth, induc- ing impacts of this particular project. Both the CEQA guidelines and case law emphasize ''the importance of dis- closure of such matters in the DEIR and public participation in comment- ing thereon. In , Peo 1 v. County of Kern, su re. for example, the court stated that the "poi icy of citizen Wit Wich underlies (CEQA)" sup- ported *the requirement of a detailed st stement [and) helps insure the integrity of the process of decision by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug." 39 Cal.App.3d at 841, quoting, Silva v.��nn__, 482 F.2d 1282, 1285 (1st Cir. 1973). See also, EnvironmenTi! Defense Fund Inc. v. Coasts County Water District, 27 Cal. App. 3d 695, `470T1I91 ). For these reasons, the inadequate. regardless of how these matters are dealt with in the final EIR. Following are the City of Palo Alto's major co 'ients to the DEIR: 1. PROGRAM VERSUS PROJECT EIR It is the City of Palo Alto's opinion that the primary reason for the DEIR deficiencies lies in the proposed use of the document for a specific project or development proposal, while the DEIR is written as a program EIR document for a redevelopment plan. Indeed, the document is internnelly conflicting, in that the assumption != the first paragraph: zt page VI -1 that the three development intensity levels war, selected "in anticipation that the Redevelopment Plan mould envisien a redevelopment scenario closely analogous to one of them" contradicts the conclusion on pane III -E-1 that the different levels 'are hypotnesIzed princi- pally for analytical purposes'. The end result is that the DEIR suffices neither as an adequate document for the Redevelopment Plan, nor as a project EIR for the DeMonet development proposal. The EIR cannot serve as the EIR for the DeMonet proposal because it does not consider that proposal -- end indeed does not even acknowledge its existence. Rather, the MIR states that the °project i ch it the subject of the DEIR is the adoption of the redevelopmeet t plan (p. I-4)„ that the specific construction or facilities anticipated by the redevelopment plan "are not clearly defined" and taat the analysis in the DEIR is therefore "sow at general." (psi -1). Similarly, the DEIR states , that the "future devilepment within Project Area emy occur anyehere along a spectrum of density sod a raft* of see c, binations° and .the EIRE s "analyse of different levels and tyFw . of future development are hypothesized principally for analytical pwrposes (p.III-E-1). -2- DRAFT On the other hand, the OF IR does not adequately address the impacts of the adoption of the redevelopment plan because it sys- tematically avoids presenting and analyzing information that is available regarding the future development that is likely under the plan. Thus while the DEIR never once mentions the project proposed by DeMonet for this site, the facts are as follows: o The DeMonet proposal has been widely described in the press for over a year (as is evident from the clippings attached as Appendix 8); o The City of East Palo Alto 5as in fact entered into specific agreements with DeMonet, including an "exclusive negotiation agreement' for the site and earlier this year was described as "currently negotiating" a 'disposition and development agree- ment" for the future development of the site (as described at page 111-2 of the Preliminary Report on the Proposed Redevelop- ment Plan, prepared by Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, April 1988); o Details of the DeMonet plans are apparently fairly well devel- oped with concrete preliminary designs and plans reported in the press; and o The square footage of the *level" of devel opr►lent which is des- cribed as the "primary deveopment level' in the DEIR is in fact virtually identical to the square footage attributable to the different components in the DeMonet proposal (see the Katz, Hollis report above, at Table 111-4), although never identified as such in the DEIR. There can be no argement that such details of the likely develop- ment of the site are %mmateri al to the evaluation of the environ- mental impact of the redevelopment plan proposed. The DE1R . itself acknowledges that the nature and scope of the development in the area and its 1 pacts depends dramatically on the extent to whim a single developer undertakes the development of the area (o. 1II- C-2). Elsewhere, the DEIR notes that the *implementetion, phas- ing, and financing of these [public works) projects will depend on the nature and phasing of private development.* (p. 111 -4 -2) - Case law decided under CEQA is clear that the agency cannot engage in *hypothetical" review when there is information available which would assist materially in understanding and evaluating the impacts of the project. Such oaisions e evidenced by state- ments as stained on page 11-12, which notes that the plan would 'buffer nd,jacent residential areas* and on page Y -A-10, which states that *tall structures would require setbacks...'°. ' If the DEIR is to suffice for the xtual development pro sal, these are highly ias ecise mitigation measures lacking in any specific detail necessary to evaluate their potential effectiveness in mitigating 275 to 15C foot high structures adjacent to single family residential uses. -3- DRAFT II. REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The DEIR did not evaluate a reduced project alternative of appro- ximately 500,000 - 600,000 square feet, a magnitude of development identified as a logical alternative in the City of Palo Alto's April 1988 response to the notice of preparation. Such alterna- tive closely resembles the maximum height and coverage permissible under the existing 5.2 zoning designation for the project area assuming 10.4 acres at 50 percent coverage with three story development). CEQA court determinations have insisted that agen- cies' prior comments be addressed, including a description of each of the enviroraental issues raised in prior consents and set forth in detail the reasons why the comments or objections were rejec- ted. The DEIR should be modified to include serious evaluation of a development level on the order of 500,000 - 600,000 square feet. III. DEIR ALTERNATIVES The DEIR contains no consistent definition of what 'alternatives" to the project are to be considered. In the summary section of the EIR, there are two alternatives identified: a "no project" alternative and "alternative funding sources" (p. 11-3). But then in the section of the DEIR which is supposed to be devoted to alternatives there is no analysis of either of these alternatives or any other concrete alternative (pp. VI -1-2), and the space devoted to the discussion of alternatives is less than a page and one half. Wh i l e the DEIR essentially addresses two differing levels of development, this analysis does not constitute a reasonable range of alternatives under CEQA. The CEQA guidelines state that the Elk shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the projecte., and to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and evaluate the com- parative merits of the alternatives. In addition, the DEIR fails to identify a superior alternative among the different alterna- tives considered as required by CEQ'.. 14 California Administrative Code ss 151a6(d)(2) Such identification of the preferred a ev i ronment al a1 t ernat i ve t et s the decision maker focus on What may well be the cost attractive alternative to * proposed project. The need for sech focus is especially import- ant here, since the EIR is drafted in a way that substantially favors consideration of the DeNonet development r °opesal, but without ever analyzing the impacts of that specific proposal, IV. ECONOMIC FEASIRILITV Of PROJECT ANO ALTERNATIVES The DEIR alludes to the lack of economic feasibi l ity, of a reduced project alternative, but no evidence is presented substantiating this contentio' . Iodeed, the document oarersll is seriously lack- ing in any scoinic or fiscal data either to support or in refuta- tion of any of the project alternatives. While the City of Palo -4- DRAFT Alto recognizes that an in-depth fiscal and economic feasibility study is ultimately requ.red with adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the absence of such analysis in the DEIR severely limits consideration of the project alternatives. The courts have deter- mined that .hen an alternative is rejected as infeasible, there must be a fact -heed analysis of why this is so, and in the event that the City of East Palo Alto may again reject reduced alterna- tive scenarios, compelling reasons should be presented substantia- ting such project infeasibility. See Citizens of Goleta Valle v. ,Board of S sors, 197 Cal. App T1. It bears emphasis that the failure to perform the evaluation urged by the City of Palo Alto, or explair its failure to do so, vio- lates CEQA's requirement that agencies must evaluate and respond to public comments, particularly those of other agencies: LT)he major envirnmental issues raised when the Lead Agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objectives raised in comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific cents and suggestions were not accepted. There must be a good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information wi l l not suffice. 14 C. Admin. Code Section 15086. The Court amplified this requireF,nt in it le v. County of Kern, 39 Cal,App.3d 830, 841 (1974): "'Moreover, where comMents from responsible experts or sister agencies disclose new or conflicting data or opinions that cause concern that the agency may not have fully evaluated the project and its alternatives, these comments may not simply be ignored."' Quoting County of Info v Yarr , 32 Cai .App.3d 795, 807 (1973) (emphai added) . V. ADEgUACY OF MITIGATION MEASURES The DEIR identifies a number of mitigation measures, particularly focusing on mitigation of the Level 2 alternative development scenario. Even though Level 3 develo nt is double the square footage of Level 2, the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR ore essentially the same, and the attached specific comments section notes this on several occasions. More importantly, how- ever, is that in our opinion, the document fails to adequately assess the residential i*pects of the project because it assures the implementation of :serous mitigation eeasures without evalua- tia:n of their effectiveness or the likelihood of their 'implementa- tion. The discussions on needed roadway, water and serer facili- ties to accommodate the plan; s ieplementation are woefully inade- quate. For example, the interchange modification eacessary to mitigatethe project indicates I estimated S18.000.000 cost with an unfunded portion of $.13:, 5 million dollars. Since the DEIR comelvOes that all: but one Single fact - air quality - will be mitigated to levels of insignificance, , practical implementation and funding of major improvements is critical to the Plan. This 4. DRAFT is of particular import in the DEIR given that many of the mitiga- tion measures assumed are costly and outside the jurisdiction of the City of East Palo Alto to implement. It is the City of Palo Alto's strong opinion that the analysis of the mitigation measures alone readers the EIR inadequate, and that recirculation of the DEIR is necessary to address these issues. IY. VISUAL AND AESTHETIC IMPACTS A major omission of the DEIR is any substantive discussion of the visual and aesthetic impacts of the project. This is puzzling, since the DEIR is intended to be the environmental document for a 275 foot tall building(s), to be located in the midst of single family residences in both communities, and will effect a high -pro- file regionally adjacent to the Bayshore Freeway and SR 84. In addition, shadow patterns, particularly on East Palo Alto resi- dents, may Way an important role in the potential desirability, or lack thereof, of development, alternatives. This section of the DEIR should be expanded to include discussion of the Above issues. In addition, the basic forms, architectural style, and building materiafi s of the project should be divulged to allow more in-depth analysis of the visual end aesthetic Impacts of the project. VIII. EMERGENCY SERVICE IMPACTS The DEIR does not sufficiently address increased demand for emer- gency services. On page 11-9, Public Services and Facilities. Level 2 development of the DEIR notes that there is a "Potent i al l y significant impact on increase of the demand for fire and emer- gency services," however the mitigation discussion is vague and incomplete. Tec Menlo Park Fire Protection District (MPFPD) is the primary service provider to the project area. Under the current automatic aid agreement, the Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) provides MPFPD with automatic aid for first alarm responses to all fires that occur in the project. An increased demand for emergency responses could overbalance the reciprocal nature of the agreement, necessitating the re-evaluation of the automatic first alarm response policy by the City of Palo Alto. In addition, PAFD is currently conducting a Council -directed fire station location study Which could further reduce the City's capacity to provide emergency response to this area, or any other area outside Palo Alto. Page 11 -1b -E, Issues to be Resolved, makes no mention of fire and emergency medical services, even though it is clearly beyond the current service capability of the District to absorb increased demand for services associated with the project. The report does not address reeds for increased urgency planning and training,' on -site staffing for public assembly and hotel bul l di ngs and the additional demands for local building staff review and inspection programs. It is estimate that a project of this size could require up to two full-time staff sabers for project monitoring, plan mocking, on -site inspections, systems testing and regular reinspections, -i- DRAFT While the DEIR notes that water supplies will need to be improved to serve the project area, mitigation measures appear underesti- mated. There is strong concern that the overall water supply and pressure for fire supppression may not be adequate to serve the project. The DEIR notes on pages it -H-4 through 7 that the City rater system is substandard, but mitigation measures only speak . to proving mains leading to the project. Increasing the water pressure is only one part of a "leaky" system is not effective. Consideration should be given to the provision of on -site reserve water supplies and fire pumps In the DEIR, particularly given that below grade parking and high-rise structures are envisioned. Finally, impacts on police services of the proposed project are considerable, and yet virtually no mitigation measures are pro- posed other than suggesting private security within the project area. The DEIR notes that an additional beat with six new offi- cers is necessary to mitigate the project, yet no coemitmen6 to such staffing or any proposed funding is indicated. Severe short- ages of police personnel in East Palo Alto is an on -going problem, and the City of Palo Alto has regularly provided back-up police services for high priority response (averaging two calls per day). The EIR sbvuld address more clearly the project impacts, mitiga- tion measures and funding to provide the necessary public safety services in East Palo Alte. The DEIR defers this issue to a future needs study, an unacceptable deferral given present public safety officer shortages. VIII. WATER AND WASTEWATER ISSUES The DEIR notes on page 11-8 that the "capacity is available to satisfy the increase in water consumption" and therefore the impact is not significant. This is not necessarily the case in drought conditions, and the DEIR should address capacity 'imita- tions during drought periods. Also, Section H-1 implies that groundwater wells are expected to provide the additional necessary potable water but nowhere in the draft EIR is there a discussion of existing groundwater contamination 07 the effects of increased pumping on groundwater quality. This is a serious omission which should be corrected in the revised DEIR. The DCIR section on wastewater treatment assumes that "the (East Palo Alto) Sanitary District has uncommitted capacity available to treat the wastewater generpted" and thus this is not a significant impact. This assumption may not be accurate. When new construc- tion is completed at the Palo Alto Water Quality Control Plant (wastewater treatment facility),' it will have a designed dry weather flow capacity of 38 million gallons per day ( D). The East Palo Alto Sanitary District ((PASO) has contracted for a maximum discharge to the Plant for treatment of 2.9 PGD of sewage. a.7 DRAFT When the average Plant influent reaches 75 percent of its designed capacity, Palo Alto as a lead agency will begin the process of evaluating inflows to determine the need for additional treatment capacity. Current total flow to the Plant (under our drought conditions) is 27 MGD, including about 2 MGD from EPASD. Because of problems with the operation of the EPASD ` s flow meter, their i of 1 Trent flow average rates are recently established to be 1.6 MGD. Yet weather flows from all sources tend to be substantially higher. This is caused by the inflow of storm water and ground water into the sanitary sewer system. On page Y -H-3 the report states, The wastewater treatment facili- ties have capacity to treat wastewater that would be produced by a population of about 27,000 people from East Palo Alto." In Table V -H-5 of the DEIR, the factors for water consumption are cal- culated as 90 percent of water use; this would indicate 216 gal - inns per day (gpd) from each residential unit. On page V -B-1 the 1980 census of East Palo Alto is listed as 18,191 people. Assum- ing an increase by 1988 to 20,000 people, that is an average wastewater flow of 100 gallons per day per person based on their current flow estimates of 2.0 MGD. If 100 gpd is assumed for each resident (a very conservative figure), then a population of 27,000 residents mould be expected to need 2.7 MW of treatment capacity. This already exceeds 75 percent (or 2.17 MGD) of the allotted capacity of 2.9 MGD. A flow of 2.7 MGD does :got include discharges from large office, co er- cial, or industrial complexes. Plant capacity assigned to other participants would not be automatically available to (PASO, conse- quently issues of wastewater treatment capacity need to be farther addresiw and documented in the DEIR. IX. TRANSPORTATION The transportation analysis in the MIR attempts to determine the oversell traffic i*pacts of the University Circle redevelopment project. It is our opinion that the methodology used in the DEIR significantly understates project impacts, because these impacts have not been evaluated in the future year that the project is expected to be occupied. Project impacts at signalized intersec- tions have been determined in 1988 existing conditions), a year when the project could not physically exist. Project impacts on the University Avenue interchange and the Bayshore freeway have been det erm i nmed for tne year 2010. The DEIR irmpl i es that this year has beer selected because it is the forecast year for long range Caltrans data for state highways, not because it represents the expected year of occupancy of the project. The effect of evaluating project Watts is 1988 is that they are greatly understated because traffic conditions Trill be worse in the future. Whether or not project iarpacts are env i ro rmental l y significant depends not only on the absolute amount of project 8- CRAFT traffic, but also on the amount the time of project evaluation. realistic year of occupancy for project traffic impacts in that of traffic on the road network at This DEIR needs to (1) identify a the project, and (2) determine all year. The DEIR assigns 20 - 25 percent of project daily traffic to Palo Alto streets. Looking specifically at University Avenue, 10 per- cent of project traffic is assigned to University Avenue west of Middlefield and from 20 - 24 percent east of Middlefield. The DEIR recognizes that many drivers traveling between project site and nearby parts of Mountain View and Redwood City wi l l probably choose to travel on local streets instead of the Bayshore freeway. The geographical distribution of employees, residents and custom- ers assumed for the project, as well as the above traffic assign- ments, appear reasonable. However, the study area for project impacts only extends to Middlefield Road in Palo Alto, whereas the City of Palo Alto had requested that it ectend to Alma Street in our April, 1988 response to the Notice of Preparation. The determination of what constitutes a significant negative traffic impact, which must then be mitigated, is a policy deci- sion. The DEIR has defined a significant negative impact at sig- nalized intersections to be impacts caused by the project which result in (1) a change -in level of service from the A - D range to the E F range (the same as Palo Alto); or (2) an increase in the volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of .05 or more (one-half level of service) when level of service is already E or F. Palo Alto con- siders an ;impact to be significant when the v/c nitio increases by .01 or more at Level of Service E or F intersections. This small increment is used because Palo Alto wanted to mitigate the cumula- tive impact of several projects with small traffic increments, which otherwise might go unmitigated. It also recognizes that there is little capacity left in the LOS E and F ranges (technic- ally none at LOS F). In summary, traffic caused by the University Circle project is allured to use up to one-half .the remaining capacity of a LOS E intersection before the impact is considered to be significant and thus subject to mitigation. Any future projects in East Palo Alto or the surrounding areas will have to share that small amount of remaining capacity. Remarkably few transportation mitigation measures are recommended in the DEIR (refer to page V -D-77 of the OUR). After discounting measures which are wore typically part of the site planning process, the primary measures are implementation of a Transporta- tion Demand Menagemaent program and cost sharing in the University Avenue interchange upgrade (both measures are identified as miti- gation measures for both Level 2 and 3 projects) . Some c: the other mitigation measures recomt ended for the project - relui re little, if any, contribution or responsibility on the part of the project developer (most of the 'working with mitigations fall into this category). iicycle, pedestrian, parking and access litigations art connected to the site planning process, ra4 are really just part .of the normal design procedure. Mitigation �g� DRAI-I measures are not identified separately for the two vastly differ- ent projects identified in the DEIR - the Level 2 and 3 develop- ments. The scarcity of real traffic mitigation measures is due in part to (a) the evaluation of project impacts at intersections in 1988 instead of the year When the project would be expected to be occupied; (b) lack of clear identification in the DEIR of the significant impacts that actually do exist at signalized intersec- tions (for Level 3 traffic) and that possibly exist at interchange locations (for Level 2 and 3 traffic); and to the fortuitous planned widening of the Bayshore freeway to 8 lanes. A major failing of the DEIR is that While many intersections and interchange improvements are discussed in the DEIR (only a few of which are determined to be the responsibility of the project), the feasibility of these improvements is not discussed (i.e., factors such as construction costs, right of way requirements, and funding mechanisms outside the Redevelopment Project revenues. Under both Level 2 and Level 3 projects, there may be significant project impacts at the modified University Avenue interchange. The uEIR does not provide enough information about v/c ratios to make the determination of whether or not there are significant impacts caused by the project. For the Level 3 project, several Palo Alto intersections will require restriping and widening in order to mitigate significant impacts in 2010, not all of which may be acceptable to Palo Alto decision makers. These intersec- tions are University/Middlefield, Embarcadero/Middlefield, Univer- sity/Guinda and Embarcadero/East Bayshore. Even after these improvements, significant Level 3 project impacts wile remain in 2010 at University/Middlefield and EmbercadeTo/Middlefield. There apparently will be io significant impacts at intersections for Level 2 project traffic in 2010 using the MIR definition of sig- nificance. Level 2 traffic till cause i ncre sses of 4 - 11 percent over 1988 daily traffic volumes on Middlefield Road, West Bayshore Road, University Avenue west of Middlefield Road, and University Avenue between Lincoln and Woodland Avenues. Increases of 16 - 19 per- cent will occur on the Lincole Avenue/Melville Avenue route and on University Avenue between Lincoln Avenue and Middlefield Road. Increases due to Level 3 traffic will be about 2-1/3 times higher than those for Level 2. The percentage increases will be less in the year the project Is actually occupied, because the base traf- fic volumes will have increased. Traffic f acts on downtown Palo Alto during the lunch hour were not identified in the DEIR, even though this was specifically re';uested in the City° s response to the RAice of Preparation. In addition, no parking analysis was provided for the project, nor was a discussioe of im ts of overflow parking into surrounding residential areas included in the OEIR. finally, no provisions were 1nc1 ude'd for bicycle and pedestrian facilities et the Univer- sity Avenue/101 overcrossing. -10- DRAFT CEQA specifically requires an analysis of cumulative impacts in the EIR. Public Resource Code Section 211000; CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126. Cumulative impacts include: (a) individual effects from a single project; or (b) the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355. California courts have repeatedly recognized the importance of the cumulative impact analysis in the EIR process. 8ozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission of Ventura, 13 C.3d 263, 283" 1 San Franc scans or ReasonaSle Grow- t' f v. City and Countl of San Fra ETsco, 151 CaT.7Cpp.3d 61, 1r(19 ) (part a the "ivltaT-EiroWeation function" of the EIR is .performed by a cumula- tive impact analysis"); Whitman v. Board of Supervisors of Ventura County, 88 Ca1.App.3d 397, 407-119/9T. the EIR in the Instant case does not contain a sufficient description of cumulative impacts under either definition. The DEIR lists other projects in the general vicinity that are planned, approved or have recently been constructed. Although the DEIR sets forth the parameters of these projects, it provides only the most cursory and formalistic discussion of their cumulative impacts. This does not comply with CEQA. As stated above, the general comments included in this letter are supplemented by Appendix A, the attached., list of more specific issues that must' be addressed in the DEIR. It is th:: City of Palu Alto's strong opinion that the DEIR in its present form does not meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. It is recommended that the City of East Pelo Alto revise and re -issue the document as a revised draft EIR for public review incorporating the comments included in this response and any others the City may receive. We consider it important to both the citizens of our community and the success of the City of East Palo Alto's redevelopment endeavors that a comprehensive, legally adequate environmental impact report be prepared to withstand the rigorous public review process of both communities. -11- LJKMr I Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to the University Circle Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan. Sincerely, WILLIAM ZANER City Manager Attachments: Appendix A (Specific page -by -page comments to DEIR) Appendix S (Newspaper articles on the Redevelopment Plan project) cc: Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto Planning Commission Rebecca Morgan Byron Sher Kesponsible Agencies APPENDIX A PAGE SPECIFIC CONENTS FROM THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ON L V L Summary Page II -6 The mitigating effect of the interchange improvements is not aluantitively presented in the DEIR. Thus, it is not possible to say that the interchange improvements mitigate the significant negative impacts of the project (refer to comments above for pages Y -D-45, 52, 53 (Table V -D-15) Ad- ditionally, significant impacts are created at intersec- tions 20 and 21 with the modified general plan interchange improvements (Table Y -D -1T, page 56). Page 11-6 TDM is mentioned in the DEIR, but interjurisdictional coordination of TOM is not mentioned. Even with the road improvements included in the plan, there remain some significant intersection impacts caused by the project under the cumulative traffic scenario (but not under the 1988 scenario) Page 11-6 These paragraphs are very general. They do not identify specific impacts. Page 11-6 Mitigation measures are different for Levels 2 and 3. Page 11-8 There is an assumption that the "capacity is available to satisfy the increase in water consumption" and therefore • the impact is not significant. This is not necessarily the case in light of current drought conditions and the existing groundwater contamination in East Palo Alto. Page 11-12 Regarding the third paragraph, how would the plan "buffer adjacent residential areas'? Regarding the fifth paragraph, what is the basis in the DEIR for the conclusion that the Sian would 'spur appreciation of land value in the...vitinity*? Re the first paragraph under Traffic/Circo ation, how would the redevelopment plan's funding participation translate into full funding for specific roadway impr oveeea:ts? Page I1-13 The Aesthetics heading should address potential negative visual impacts of the Level 2 and Level 3 project alternatives. Page 11-14 The conclusion in the third page that Palo Alto "suggested the least intensive use of the project area" is not true. Palo Alto's April 27, 1988 response to the Notice of Preparation suggested a mid -level alternative between Levels 1 and 2 as reviewed in the DEIR, but did not 9/6/88 1 indicate a preference for any particular level of development. The paragraphs under Visual Quality should address the off -site impacts of Level 2 and Level 3 high-rise structeres. Page 11-16 Regarding the first paragraph, it should be noted that on page II -1, the Level 1 alternative is identified as not achieving the project sponsor's objectives. Page I1-16 Fire and Emergency Medical Services are absent from this section of the report. It is clearly beyond the current service capability to absorb the increase demand for services. A preliminary needs assessment for citywide police services has been conducted for Police services. A similar needs assessment should be conducted for fire and emergency medical services. Page I1-17 Air quality is an issue to be resolved because "the air quality mitigation measures identified in Level 3...are not sufficient to reduce all the air quality impacts to en acceptable level or eliminate all air quality violations." The DEIR indicates 'e Statement of Overriding Considerations in compliance with CF.QA Guidelines may be necessary.' If not necessary, what else may be considered? Since the report assumes no significant impact for air contaminants other than CO, then local ambient air monitoring tests should be run to provide data at impacted intersections and in nearby residential areas. This would then allow for further testing during and after construction of each portion of the project to demonstrate whether this 'no impact' assumption is correct, Project Description Pages, III -A-1 & 2 The background section of the DEIR misses the important role of the specific project described in the preliminary report for the Project area. The background report should include a chronology of events leading to the DEIR, including the specific proposals by De Monet Industries, the exclusive negotiation agreement between the City of East Palo Alto and De Monet Industries, and the specific project work previously undertaken by De Monet Industries. Page 111-8-1 The project is situated saich that significant exposures will increase the hazards of the 8ayshore Freeway from distractions, dust, smoke, and movement of heavy equipment: The constructioi period will be especially hazardous and may result in unnecessary accidents, injuries and deaths. Page 11I-E-I The paragraph under PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT is misleadin, in referring to the different levels as 'hypothesized, principally for analytical purposes" when, in fact, Level 2 is related to a specific project proposal previously put forth by De Monet Industries and described in the COMMENT 9/6/6* 2 • Redevelopment Agency's Preliminary Report Gable 111-4, with credit given to De Monet Industries). Page III -E-1 It is not clear how the amount of square footage was derived for the level 1 alternative. The amount of land area for ee :h use as well as the amount of building square footage based on zoning or general plan designations should be stated. Page III -E-2 In the first full paragraph, add a definition of the 'primary development level.' Parking for Level 2 indicates 2,426 spaces, what is the basis for this parking level according to the uses and square footages proposed? An estimate of parking demand under Palo Alto parking standards indicates a need for at least 3,500 spaces. Pages III -H-1 & 2 The list of proposed public improvements should be expanded to include the project costs and percent of project costs allocated to the Redevelopment Plan as detailed in the Preliminary Report. Provide additio,al information on other sources of funding to indicate how these projects will be imolemented. Page III -H-2 Page III -H-2 The Water Main Improvements are not defined. At a minimum, they should include: I) Complete replacement of all lead connections. 2) Repair or replacement of all substandard water lines. 3) An increase in line pressure to provide adequate flow and pressure service for fire fighting and supply to the top of tall buildings. 4) A realistic estimate of cost and source(s) for the needed funds to accomplish these necessary improvements. The Sewer Line Improvements listed are not defined. They should include, at a minimum: I) An aggressive, system -wide, program of infiltration and inflow control to decrease current, excessive wet weather flw±s. This should be in addition to the efforts presently underway. 2) The enforcement of a strong pretreatment program, including sampling and testing, to meet ell WOES standards (State Regional Water Quality Control gourd requirements). 3) The installation of larger trunk sewers where necessary to carry the increased hydraulic load. COMMENT 9/6/88 4) &realistic estimate of the costs of these improvements and identification of source(s) for the required funds to accomplish these very expensive improvements. Public Platys and Policies Page IV -A -I Page IV -A-4 Page IV -B-1 Page 1V -B-2 The General Plan amendment is required because of the "magnitude' of the development in Level 2 and 3 but the existing General Plan densities or limitations are not stated and should be provided in this section. The report indicates "Fire suppression within the Project Area would be assisted by modern construction methods .nd materials." The report does not address the need Co increased emergency planning and training for occupancies, on -site staffing for public assembly and hotel buildings, street capability to allow fire fighting equipment ingress and egress, and the additional demand for local and county fire and building staff review and inspection progrars. The relationship of the Plan to relevant agencies is listed but excludes the City of Palo Alto. In that Palo Alto city boundary is immediately adjacent to the Project Area the relevant land use and transportation elements of Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan should be indicated. At the least it should be included in Section I'1 -C and t:,e relevant zoning for the City of Palo Alto should be shown on Figure V -A-2. The report discusses the hazard to air traffic caused by the physical presence of the buildings. The report does not address the potential impact of increased light and corporate air traffic to support the office and hotel develo ent. The Project area is in the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) boundary but a description of the limitations or map location of the boundary are not provided for review. Page 1V -C-2 The City concurs with the treatment of the professional sports stadium in the OUR as described on this page. Land Use and Zoning Page V -3 Assuming the maxims height and coverage identified under zoning designation S-2 applies to total development, then the maximum theoretical deveiepment under existing zoning for the 10.4 acres of commercial or re s i ent i al land is approximately 680,000 square feet of floor area (acreage times SO percent coverage times tree -story development). A development clone to this magnitude was identified as a logical development level in the City's April 1983 response to the Notice of Preparation. Modify the.i)tIR to include evaluation of a development level on the order of what is possible under current tuna . COMMIT 9/6/08 4 Page V -A-10 Regareing the fourth paragraph on the page, include specific analysis to identify what types of design guidelines need to be developed to order to "buffer the surrounding residential areas from adjacent incompatible land uses." The statement "tall structures would require setbacks..' is an extremely imprecise and useless mitigation statement without specific detail attached to it. Explain how the mitigation measure, would mitigate the visual impact. Population and Housing Page Y -B-2 Page V -B-3,5 Page V -B -b Page V -B-7 Page V -B -YO and CallfENT The DEIR relies on 1900 Census Data for population and housing information, howevxr there is more current information regarding the median income per household that is available. The 1987 median income of $20,054 was stated in the Preliminary Report, along with other relevant population and housing facts, that st'uld be used in the LJEIR. Furthermore the discussion of the population "in poverty" is out -dated housing +,e:uinology that has been replaced with a new standard by HUD to describe housing need in terms of low and very low income persons. Information from Section II -1Z of 'he Preliminary Report should be used to make comparisons with San Mateo County. The information on the housing stock in the Project Area is very brief. In that relocation and replacement housing is a significant mitigation measure it would be important to survey the area at this time to obtain a more precise descripicion of the existing hocsing stock, rents and the replacement need. Some of this information is available in the Preliminary Report but should be accompanied by an inventory of the area, given its small size. tercel ? and 3 would produce differing amounts of tax increment yet the amount of housing generated under Level is the save as 2 but is not explained. More jobs and commercial activity will generate more housing need and "nis should be analyzed more thoroughly. The 90 units of low or moderate income housing over a 35 year period does not go far in reaiA ng the production goals of 67 units a year. Additional information should be provided regarding the assumptions in the second paragraph that yield a total of 90 MP dwelling units. Is it likely that per -unit subsidies Aould average $75,C1r, The potential for notably more units should be evaluated. The units Plan rewires that a portion of any new is built in the Project Area would have to meet needs of low and moderate income bovseholis but verylittle lousing is proposed sender Level 2 and 3. Under Level 2 only 12 volts of the 24 units will be affordable to persons earning or less of the median income whereas 90 of the existing residents Ind approximately 802 or 30% of the projected workers would probably fall into this income category and 9/6/88 5 therefore need the housing. Information on housing need generated by the new jobs in the Project area is very brief and should be analyzed more thoroughly. Employment Page V -C-4 Will proposed project and alternatives provide types of employment that address the employment needs of East Palo' Alto's unemployed? Page V C-6 Where are the new workers in the project expected to reside? What is the basis for determining such a commute pattern? Page V -C-7 Identify consultant source for assumed employment densities in Table v -C-4. Page V -C-11 Page V -C-11 Mitigations are very broad and are not specific enough to address housing need generated by new employment. The base of employees for the new jobs are hoped to come out of East Piao Alto but there is no guarantee or stated mitigation to insure that that occurs. Hare si:.es been identified where potentially displaced businesses could be relocated? If so, where? Traffic and Transportation Page V -D-1 & 9 Palo Alto had requested that the project impact area extend to Alamo Street. The DEIR sets the boundary of the impact area at Middlefield Road; therefore, it does not provide much detail about traffic impacts beyond Middlefield. Of the 13 intersections (11 in Palo Alto) that Pala Alto requested be included in the DEIR, only 6 were included. All 13 should be included. Page V -D-3 Page V -D-6 Page V -D-7 Pages V -D-6 6 7 University Avenue in Palo Alto is a tiro -lane facility because it does not have left -turn pockets. The discussion of roadway improvements, and specifically the interchange modifications described on this page, should be accompanied by the cost information identified in the Preliminary Report table I11-1. Specifically, if item 1 in table I11-1 is all of this interchange project, then the DEIR should indicate how the unfunded 513.5 million of this project is to be provided. Reference is oaf to auxiliary lanes on Rayshore Freeway between Willow and E arcadero Roads. These lanes are also mentioned in two locations on page V -D-63. The references, -especially that on page seven, imply that these lanes are in the STIP, but we believe they are not. References are made to the.STIP and to Measure A. Full documentation is needod in the DEIR regarding what 9/6/ 6 projects, and associated level of funding, are in the STIP and Measure A. Page Y -D-9 Page V -D-9 Page Y -D-14 Page V -D-16 This fall, Caltrans is planning to restripe the western approach of Route 84, which Caltrans anticipates will substantially alleviate all current AM and PM congestion on Routes 84 and 114 (Willow). These improvements were not mentioned here. All study area intersections should be evaluated during the AM and PM peak hours. AM counts were not obtained for five of the eighteen intersections included in this study (refer to Table V -D-4). In Figure 5, a key to the two sets of numbers is needed. Intersection 17, Embarcadero/East Bayshore, was calculated at LOS E, v/c - .96 in the Palo Alto Citywide Study, using the same turbine counts used in this DEIR. Please verify intersection geoeetry and the LOS calculation. Page V -D-30 The sentence beginning with 'The closure of O'Conner,.." does not make sense. Pages Y -D-31 & 32 The titles for these two figures should probably read "Project Level 2", eeJ "Project Level 3"; not "Project e Level 2", etc. III Page Y -D-33 The 10,400 figure for University south of Middlefield should bw 10,500. Page V -D-35 One likely neighborhood route in Palo Alto is Woodland/Newell, between the project site and Embarcadero Road. This was not discussed in the DEIR, and should be included. Page Y -D-36 East Palo Alto has defined a significant negative impact at signalized intersections, to be an increase in v/c ratio of .05 or more wtien level of service is E and F. Palo Alto considers an impact to be significant when the v/c ratio increases by .01 or more at LOS E and F intersections. This small increment was selected not because the impact of a .01 change is large or noticeable, but because Palo Alto wanted to mitigate the cumulative impact of several projects with small traffic increments, which otherwise might go unmitigated. It also recognizes that there is little capacity left in the LOS E and F ranges (technically none at LOS F). The determination of what constitutes a significant ative traffic impact is a policy decision, and East Palo has chosen to apply a very literal definition. Palo Alta had requested that noon hour project impacts be determined, including the determination of impact on downtown Palo Alto. This should be included. 9/6/88 7 Page V -D-40 Page V-0-42 Page V -D-42-45 SIT Refer to comments on pages V -D-57 and 58 regarding Biyshore freeway impacts. TL text states that cumulative LOS impacts at signalized intersections in 2010 have been evaluated with 1988 geometries. It would seem more reasonable to assume that some improvements might be in place by 2010. Some improvements are listed on pages III -H-1, V -D-6 - 9, and V -D-62 - 66 of the DEIR. The result might be a better and move realistic background cumulative traffic forecast at signalized intersections. In the fourth paragraph on this page the text states that "...cumulative traffic growth...(warrants) consideration of additional local roadway improvements...." It should be clarified what is meant by "additional". (Additional to the improvements listed on pages III -H -I and V -D-6 - 9?) The discussion of cumulative impacts for signalized intersections exposes a serious flaw in the determination of the project's traffic impacts; that is, in this DEIR environmentally significant negative project impacts at signalized intersections have been determined on a base of 1988 traffic, and not on future base (cumulative) traffic. Pages 36-39 identify the magnitude of v/c changes for signalized intersections for 1988 traffic cond4.tinns, explaining which intersections will experience significant negative project impacts. This identification is not made for the future base condition on pages V -D-42-45. Accepted engineering and environmental practices call for the evaluation of project impacts, and the making of environmental determinations on the basis of future traffic conditions; usually corresponding to the expected buiidout of the project. The DEIR authors have selected 2010 as the future year of analysis, but have not identified all project impacts under those conditions. The DEIR does not state whether 2010, or some earlier year, is when the proposed project is expected to be occupied. If 2010 is that year, then all project impacts need to be evaluated in 2010. If an earlier year is selected, then the impact analysis needs to be redone during that earlier year. Using the definition of significant impact identified in the DEIR, and examining Tables V -D-13 and 14 (future base conditions), it can be determined that Level 2 project traffic will cause significant negative Impacts at intersection seven in the AM peak hour, and intersection 18 in the PM peak hour (versus only intersection seven 4n the AM, and none in the PM for 1988 conditions). Level 3 project traffic will cause significant negative impacts at intersections 1, 2, 7, 8, and 16 in the AM, and intersections 1, 2, 8, 9, 16, 17, and, 18 in the PM (versus only intersect4en seven in the AM and intersections 8, 14, 16, and 18 in the PM for 1988 conditions). Clearly, evaluation of project impacts under existing conditions greatly understates the negative impact of the project, With will not be completed ,Atli a future date, (The 8/6/88 �8 impact of the project is greater in the future, not because the impact of the project is different, but because back„ieund conditions are much worse, meaning many more LOS E and f intersections in the project area.) Refer also to dents for page V -D-66. Page V -D-45 In the third line of the seventh paragraph the reference to Tables V -D-14 and 15 should only be to the latter. Pages V -D-45,52,53 Table V -D-15 is preceded by illustrations showing three different configurations for the University Avenue interchange. The table does not state which configuration the table is based on. It appears from the text that the table represents conditions with the existing interchange configuration. The table shows the effects of project traffic on the interchange, but it is not stated whether the increases in vie ratios are considered to be environmentally significant. Is the same definition to be applied as for signalized intersections (i.e., significant negative impacts being an increase in the v/c ratio of .05 or greater with the base v/c at .90 or greater, or moving from LOS E to LOS F)? If so, then Table V -D-15 shows that, under 2010 conditions, Level 2 project traffic with the existing interchange will cause significant negative traffic impacts at two locations each in the AM and PM peak hours. Level 3 project traffic will cause significant negative impacts at three locations in the AM peak hour and four locations in the Phi peak hour. At the bottom of page V -D-45, the text concludes that the interchange must be reconstructed. Page V -D-53 describes the proposed new configuration but does not provide a detailed capacity analysis or individual interchange movements. Thus, the DEIR does not divulge whether the new interchange configuration actually mitigates Level 2 and Level 3 project impacts. Another table of v/c ratios is needed for the proposed interchange configuration; similar to Table V -D -I5, including statements of whether significant negative impacts still remain. Pages V -D-53-56 This discussion focuses on project impacts at and near the Untversit /Yoodland intersection. The text and tables identify locations and time periods when LOS E and F conditions would occur, but there is no statement or other recornition that these impacts are environmentally significant. Project traffic impacts are glo_sed over by this lack of clear identification of environmentally significant impacts. There are, in fact, significant negative impacts with Level 3 traffic at intersections 20. and 2Ir even if the modified general plen interchange is constructed (see Table V -D-17. Pages d-0-57 i 58 This discussion focuses on project impacts on ®ayshore Freeway. The table at the bottom of page 9-D-58 does not state that assumptions were made for usage of the seventh and eighth lanes too the freeway in 2010. The notes at the COMMENT 9/6/88 9 bottom of the table imply that the lane was treated as a mixed use lane. The discussion needs to identify whether the lanes are expected to be used as car pool lanes. as are the new lanes in Santa Clara County, and state what level of usage is expected for thas,car pool lanes and why. The discussionalso does not state whether auxiliary lanes (tenth and tenth lanes) were assumed for the rift computations for 2010. The discussion does not define what constitutes a significant negative traffic impact for the freeway mainline. Is it the same as for signalized intersections: Page Y -D-60 Page Y -D-61 Page V-0-62 Page Y -D-64 Pages V-0-62-66 for clarity, The TOM goal should be stated in terms of the percentage reduction of single occupant drivers from the theoretical norm of 100 percent single occupant drivers. This is the way the TOM goal is stated for many TOM ordinances, including the well-known Pleasanton ordinance and the proposed Golden Triangle ordinance which will affect Palo Alto. A goal of 35 to 45 percent reduction in single occupant automobile driving is suggested (based the goals for the Golden Triangle and Pleasanton, respectively). For this area, staggered work hours wouJ d not be considered a viable TOM technique, given that the peak csmmete period already encompasses about 3 hours each in tie morning and evening, and will be considerably worse wen the proposed project is occupied. Carpooling and shuttles to mainline transit routes will probably be the best TOM techniques. Traffic interchange improvements are 'fisted as a mitigation measure, whereas the interchange improvement is clearly a prerequisite to building the project, as stet rd at the bottom of page Y -D-45. The second paragraph under the Route 64/University Avenge heading describes improvements that Caltrans is already Tfanning for this fall (refer to comment for page Y -D-9). herefore, this could not be considered a mitigation oeasurs. In the fourth paragraph, the references to Tables Y -D-4 and 5 should probably be instead to Tables Y -D-13 and 14. The discussion on these pages reiterates the viewpoint of the 0(11 that environmentally significant project traffic impacts for signalized interactions are being determined and mitigated based on 1986 traffic conditions, rather than an the basis of future base conditions. Specifically, on page Y -0-U in the fourth paragraph, the text states that tam project would have no negative netts on the intersections listed in Tables V-0-13 and ]4 (incorrectly referred to as Tables Y-0-4 and 5) uncle. the cumulative scenario. Yet, as mehtioned 1n the discussion above regarding pages V -D-42-45, Tables V -D-13 and 14 show that the project will have significant negative impacts at some of the i ntersect i ons . 9/6/68 10 Pages Y -D-66 Pages V -D-66 Pages V-0-62-66 Page V -D-49 Page V-0-71 The description of the improvement for the Embarcadero/East Bayshore intersection is not clear. If Embarcadero is considered to be oriented north -south at this location, the improvement described would remove a through lane from the northbound approach, leaving only one through lane heading towards the Bay. Is this sufficient for both AM and PM conditions? The statement that '...all project -related traffic can be mitigated" applies only to the signalized intersections listed in Tables V-0-19 - 22 and only if the project were occupied in 1988. Even with mitigations, Table V -D-22 shows that Level 3 project traffic would continue to have significant negative impacts at intersections 8 and 16 in 2010; using the definition of significant impact mentioned earlier in the DEIR. Significant impacts also remain after mitigation for Level 3 traffic at Intersections 20 and 21, as shown in Table V-0-17. Because the DEIR ascertains project impacts at intersections in 1988, rather than in the future, the project is relieved from any responsibility for implementation of mitigations, which become necessary in the future when traffic conditions will be considerably worse due to the project being built. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, there may n1so be unidentified significant impacts remaining in the interchange, even after it is•modified. The last two paragraphs of page V-0-64, the Traffic section on page V -D-17, and the third pera raph of paged -2 imply that East Palo Alto should be involved financially in intersection improvements which become necessary because of future traffic conditions, but the project itself is not mentioned as a contributor. Palo Alto had requested that the discussion of physical mitigations include the feasibility, cost of right of way, cost of construction, and analysis of secondary impacts of the improvements. This information is needed in order for decision -makers to know whether a particular physical mitigation is realistic enough to be implemented and, hence, can really be considered as a mitigation measure. This table shows that neither Level 2 or 3 project traffic will have any effect on the v/c ratio of intersection seven (Rt. 84 and Dnivereity) after improvements are made. Giver; that the same intersection is greatly affected by project tr+effic before improvements are made (Table V -D-13), explain why project traffic does not affect the intersection at all after improvements are made. No bicycle or- pedestrian improvements are proposed for bniverslty Avenue as it crosses the Bayshoee Freeway. On page 69, the DEIR states that it will be difficult for !cyclists to cross the existing interchange bridge while on -stmt under all traffic conditions. Palo Alto had rested that the EIB analyze the safety impacts on bicyclists and pedestrians who use this interchange, and discuss the need and feasibility of having a separate 9/6/88 11 pedestrian/bicycle crossing of the freeway in the vicinity of University Avenue. This analysis should be provided. Pages V-0-71 & 72 No parking analysis has been provided, as the DEIR does not discuss a specific development project. The parking supply rates appear to be adequate, except that parking for retail is considerably less than the one space per 275 square feet which is specified for shopping centers in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.83. Pages V -D-77 & 78 Recommended mitigations for the project are summarized on these pages. Some of these mitigations require little, if any, contribution or responsibility on the part of the project developer (all but one of the "working with" mitigations). Bicycle, pedestrian, parking and access mitigations are connected to the site planning process, and are really just part of the normal project design procedure. The only mitigations involving the project developer which seem trueiy to mitigate potential significant impacts identified in the report are (a) requirement of a TDM plan, (b) contributing financially toward the University interchange improvements, and (c) providing a second project access to University Avenue. It could be said that providing a second project access to University is just part of a proper site plan and should not even be regarded as a mitigation. Mitigation measures are not identified separately for the twe vastly different projects identified in the DEIR -- the Level 2 and 3 designs. The scarcity of traffic mitigation reasures for such large projects is due in part to the evaluation of project !.pacts at intersections in 1988, a year when the project could obviously not physically exist; to lack of clear identifica'cion in the DEIR of all the significant impacts that actually do exist at signalized intersections and possibly at interchange locations; and to the fortuitous widening of the freeway to 8 lanes. Other Palo Alto had requested that the DEIR discuss traffic impacts net found to be significant, and to suggest mitigation measures for these impacts. Examples of this type of impact might be project traffic causing the level of service of a facility to change from *D" to "D/(' or from "A" to "C", or the added traffic on the University Avenue interchange causing increased difficulties for bicyclists and pedestrians crossing the freeway. This discussion and suggested ■itigat;on measures were not provided, University Avenue Bridge at San i rancisquito Creak must be analyzed to deter&ne its adequacy to handle the increased traffic generated by this project. CalTrans should be contacted regarding their rat1r of this bridge's structural condition and the possible need for uPgrad ng or rehabilitation. Amy necessary improvements would become a requ#went of project epproval. 9/6/88 12 Noise Pages V -E-4 $ 5 Page Y -E-9 The DEIR discusses 'temporary' noise associated with the construction phase of the project. While this noise may be temporary when compared to the ongoing noise that will be generated by traffic, the construction will take many • months to complete and would impact Palo Alto residents. What recourse will Palo Alto residents have when the noise levels exceed those allowed within Palo Alto jurisdiction? Palo Alto's Noise Ordinance and designated truck routes should be incorporated by East Palo Alto. Given the noise levels identified in Table V -E-2, why is there not a need for a finding of significant impact and a finding of overriding considerations for outdoor activities? Air Quality Air quality concerns are dealt with in several areas, including the sect►o'Fs on traffic and construction. Page 11-6 There is a discussion of substantial increases in traffic congestion and vehicle trips. The Air Resources Board ras determined that traffic produces ozone (03), CO, lead, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter, oxides of sulfur (00x) and other toxics. These emissions result in the degradation of the air quality and a health hazard. Thus the report is in error when it states that there will be no new health hazards. Page V -F-3 Pages V -F-8 & 9 Page Y -F-11 t0iI1Eg1 The ozone standard attainment date of 1988, we believe, has been extended. The information at the top of the page should be updated. The report conc'udes that "the Project would not be significant regionally" as related to impacts on air quality. However, one violatioe within a region is counted as a violation for the entire region. Consideration of possible traffic impacts on air quality is particularly important because this area is already identified as a non -attainment area for 03 and CO under standards established by the Clean Air Act and Amendments. Mitigation measures should be required to prevent the fur^her degradation of air quality by the Project and in surrounding areas. All prssible contaminants must be con%iderod. The air quality analysis should include the intersections. of University and Middlefield, and Middlefield and Embarcadero in Palo Alto. 9/6/ -Pe 13 Vegetation end Wildlife Page V -G-4 Public Services Page V -H-1 There is a discussion of the impacts on San Francisquito Creek. The State Department of Fish and Game needs to be advised to determine whether a Streambed Alteration Agreement 1s needed. The analysis of water supply should include an assessment of whether the pressure and flow rate is available to provide fire service for the high-rise structures identified in Levels 2 and 3. If increased pressure is necessary, the impacts on the rest of the water system, and on -site, water -related features necessary to provide adequate fire protection should be evaluated. Page V -H-1 It appears that groundwater wells are expected to provide the additional, necessary potable water, but nowhere in the (EIR is there a discussion of the existing or potential groundwater contamination nor the effect of additional pumping on groundwater quality. Pages Y-H-1,2,IZ There is discussion of the water main improvements, but no indication of funding for these improvements that will be required through the entire system. If the local participants in the two, very small water providers will not sr can not pay, will the developer cover the costs? Page V -H-2 When the new construction is completed at the Palo Alto Water Quality Control Plant (wastewater treatment facility), it will have a designed dry weather flow capacity of 38 million gallons per day (PIGI?). The East Palo Alto Sanitary District (EPASD) has contracted For a maximum discharge to the Plant for treatment of 2.9 MGD of sewage. Page V -H-3 Current, total flow to the Plant (under our drought conditions) is 27 MGD, including about 2 MGD from EPASD. Because of problems with the operation of the EPASD's flow meter, their influent flow average rates are only recently established at 1.6 MGD. Wet weather flows from all sources tend to be substantially higher. This is caused by the inflow of storm water and ground water into the sanitiTy sewer system. While the Plant presently has sufficient, spare capacity to accept more than 2 MGD from EPASD this capacity belongs to other participants. Should the Project Developer be required to provide sufficient reserves for EPASD to provide funds for additional ,capacity to be built for their increase of EPASD's discharge to the sanitary sewer? The information provided under the SEWER heading is far too general in order to analyze project impacts. The potential for this project to require increases in the capacity of 1/6 14 Page V -H-3 i 5 III Page V -H -d the sewer system needs to be specified, including the cost of providing this work. The report states, °The wastewater treatment facilities have capacity to treat wastewater that would be produced by a population of about 27,000 people from East Palo Alto.* What is the basis of this statement? In Table V -H-5 the factors for water consumption are calculated as 90 percent of w•;ter use; this Would indicate 216 gallons per day (gpd) from each residential unit. On page V -B-1 the 1980 census of East Palo Alto is listed as 18,191 people. Assuming an increase by 1988 to 20,000 people, that is an average wastewater flow of 100 gallons per day per person based on their current flow estimates of 2.0 HO. If 100 gpd is assumed for each resident (a very conservative figure), then a population of 21,000 residents would he expected to need 2.7 MGD of treatment capacity. This already exceeds 80% of the allotted capacity (or 2.32 MGD) of 2.9 MGD. A flow of 2.7 MGD dues not include discharges from large office, commercial, or industrial complexes. This data needs to be provided for each proposed level of the project. is the assumption that Plant capacity assigned to other participants would be automatically available to EPASO? This calculation does not include a factor for infiltration and inflow of groundwater into the EPASD sanitary sewer system. City of Palo Alto has actually been providing assistance to East Palo Alto Police Derartment at all hours, not just during evening hours as indicated in the DEIR. On the average, two calls a day occur for high priority response. The addition of more people to any area presents additional potential targets and victims. Page V -H -B What is the basis for the statement in the last paragraph regarding increased water pressure? Pages V -H-4,5,6,7 Water mains leading to the project will have to be upgraded. It appears that the entire city water system is substandard. The mitigation only speaks of improving mains leading to the project. Additional thought need% to be given the provision of reserve waiter supplies on site and fire ;amps for the high-rise buildings. The report also speaks of general upgrading of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District's station f2 with no specifics or costs to the community. Add tiohal staffing is mentioned for firefighting faree! while the additional staffing for Fire Prevention is not addressed. A project of this size could require two full-time staff for project monitoring, plan checking, on -site inspections, systems testing and regular reinspections. 9/6/88 15 Pages V -H-11 Page V -H-12 Page Y -H-13 Table Y -H -S calculates "net" wastewater flow increases from the Project for level 1. It deducts the flow from existing buildings because they will be replaced. However, since part of the planned mitigation measures is to relocate the current residents and commercial establishments, their effluent will be moved, not removed, from the total EPASD sewage discharge to the treatment facility. Provide specific information on the water distribution system upgrade described in paragraph two, including how the remainder of the work would be financed. Further, if wredevelopment.will facilitate secondary development which could cumulatively impact demand for the City's water supply', an assessment should be made of the level of impact and whether this project should contribute towards resolving the cumulative problem. The report states, 'The existing sewers have sufficient capacity to transport flows from the Project Area; however, wet weather flows create potential overflow problems." This is not a "potential" problem; it exists now and will on14 be exacerbated by increasing the hydraulic load on the system. This project may require increases in the size of some sections of the sanitary sewer system. The report concurs in this opinion on page V -H-3. Provide specific information on the sewer system expansions described under the paragraphs related to Level 2 and Level development, including how the remainder of the work could be financed. Pages V -H-15, 16, 'Potentially Significant impact on increase of the demand 20-22 for fire and emergency services" is indicated in the report; however, the mitigation discussion (V -H-20=22) is vague and incomplete. Menlo Park Fire Protection.District (MPFPD) is the primary service provider while the Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) is also directly impacted. PAFD provides $PFPD with automatic aid for first alarm responses to all fires that occur in the project area. The increased demand for emergency responses could overbalance the reciprocal nature of the current automatic aid agreement end cause the service level to the Palo Alto community to be reduced. Budget reductions for FY 88-89 and projections for FY 119-90 clearly indicate a reduced ability for meeting increased demand for service. In addition, PAFD is condecting a fire station location study which could further reduce the PAFD's capacity to respond to this area of high life hazard. In the second last paragraph on page Y -H -1S, enough design specifications are presently available for the Level 2 and 3 to detomiae the fire equipment necessary to service office towers. The resolution of this issue should be responded to prior to certification cf the Final EIR rather than prior to imple+ antation of the project, as identified on page Y -H -I6. COMMENT 9/6/88 16 Page V -H-15 Level 2 would require the creation of one police beat and at least six officers. The cost of that mitigation and_ source of funds has not been identified and should be indicated as part of the DEIR. Page V -H-19 The mitigation measures regarding modifications to the water system for Levels 2 and 3 and modifications to the wastewater system for the same levels on page V -H-20 should include specific improvements needed and the potential allocation of funding to the project. Page V -H-19, 0 Mitigation measures and costs for Levels 2 and 3 are shown to be the same for water supply and waste water. What is the basis for this? ..The needed improvements are not the same. Page 9-H-22 The DEIR indicates the Uniform Fire Code 1982 would be used as the standard for all life safety requirements. It needs to be noted that many changes have occurred to improve the Fire Code from 1982 and it is recommended that the UFC 88 edition be the standard for this project. Geol oe and Seismology Page V -J-1 The DE1R states that "A groundwater recharge program was implemented in the Santa Clara Valley that has virtually eliminated subsidence in the East Palo Alto area. This conclusion may not be justified with the recent and planned increases in ground water p ing rates, Water Quality Page V -K-1 Page g -K-1 Page V -K-3 It appears likely that drainage from this project would discharge into nearby San Francisquita Creek. The Santa Clara Valley Water District, which is charged with the operation and maintenance of this creek, must be consulted to assure that the creek is protected from these flows. Some improvements may be appropriate. The investigation identified in the first paragraph under the GRATER heading should he undertaken as part of the DEIR, in part to identify any historic underground tank leakage problems that would need to be cleaned up as part of this project. Ady proposal for u lergreund parking mast consider grater levels in this area. Construction of such perks could necessitate constant pumping of groundwater into the drainage system unless the parking structure is built in a waterproof manner, Ping is not favored because of its impact on the drainage system, and because it can cause ground subsidence in some instances.. The soils report prepared for this project must directly address construction f any suc underground structures. 9/6/88 17 Visual Quality Pages V -L-1, 2 & 3 These pages are inadequate because of the lack of specific analysis related to the heights of potential buildings, especially under Level 2 and 3 development. For example, the value of the "visual screen' identified in paragraph three on page 1 is not possible to determine without specific analysis. The mitigations for Level 2 and 3 on ' page V -L-3 are essentially meaningless, in that "compatibility" is not defined in paragraph one. The visual impact study identified in the third paragraph should be included in the DEIR. Parks Page V -P 2 Level 2 would include 0.8 acres of public recreation but there is nothing in the project description that identifies the form this would take. Cultural/Historical Resources Page V -N -I Alternatives Page VI -1 • If potentially culturally -significant objects are found on the construction► site, a qualified archaeologist should not only examine findings, but should also recommend appropriate mitigations if necessary. The assumption in the first paragraph that the three intensity levels were selected "in anticipation that the Redevelopment Plan would envision a redevelopment scenario closely analogous to one of them" contradicts the conclusion on page III -E-1 that the different levels "are hypothesized principally for analytical purposes." The conclusion in the alternative section, especially Given information in the Preliminary Report, is the correct conclusion regarding the likelihood of development at the specific intensity of Level 2. Significant Effects Page VII -3 Provide specific information to Justify the conclusion for item 8. The conclusion for item 9 does not consider specific impacts inherent in a project the size of Level 2 or 3, and this analysis should be provided. Page VIZ -4 The paragraph under item 17, on aesthetic effects, is indefensible, given the lack of analysis of off -site impacts of either 279- or 3SO-foot-high buildings. Effects rot fob, t0 be SiviitEtat Page VIII -1 Without details of s =cific construction projects, it is impossible to deal with specific materials that might be hazardous. NOwAver, a major freeway tnterhange such as University and 101 can be expected do be used to transport 916/88 18 hazardous materials that have common, domestic uses (e.g. gasoline, pool chemicals). A mixed -use development including unidentified commercial uses can be expected to store and use hazardous chemicals along with their associated risks. Examples of such uses would include dry cleaning and copying services. The DEIR should discuss potential.. health hazards and the possible significant impacts of the transport, storage and use of hazardous materials. In addition, these topics should be seriously considered in an EIR for each specific construction project, not only in a program EIR. Each specific EIR should include a valid risk assessment for individual and cumulative elements. Relationship Between Short -Term Uses of The Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity Page IX -3 The report states that mitigation "measures will avcid any cumulative impacts" for air quality. This statement is not supported by the data on CO in the report:. Additional discussion of other contributors to air degradation would require an appropriate, technically correct assessment. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Page X-1 Under University/Woodland the text implies that addition of a second access point on University Avenue mitigates a significant impact. In reality, as shown in Table V -D-17, tl.ts solves the problem at University/Woodland, but creates significant impacts at nearby intersections 20 and 21. No mitigation for these latter impacts is discussed. Appendix A: Project Area Traffic Forecast Pages A -B & 9 Pages A-10 & 11 COVENT The distribution tables on these pages show that the office trip distribution is similar to the distribution assumed in the 1987 Bleyney-Dyett study. However, the DEIR uses different distributions for each land use of the project, as it should. The Blayney-Dyett study used the office distribution for the entire project. The distributions for midget, commercial,_ hotel and theatr2 trips are weighted cansiderably heavier towards Palo Alto than the office distribution. Which seems reasonable. The traffic assignment used in the DEIR recognized that local trips being made to and from the project site from between nearby Redwood Eity'and nearby Mountain View would not use the freeway, due to congestion. This is a more reasonable assumption than that used in the Blayney-Dyett study whit, assumed that Menlo Park and Palo Alto drivers wduli use the..freeway. however, by the time the project is built, congestion at local intersections may decrease the attractiveness of these local routes. 9/6/88 19 Appendix S: Cumulative Traffic Forecast Page B -I In the last paragraph, the reference to Table V -D-3 appears to be incorrect. Perhaps the reference should be to Table 31-1. Pages 8-2 i 3 Many` if not most, of the Palo Alto projects listed in Table B-1 were occupied as of this year. Traffic counts for the DEIR were taken primarily in 1988, with a few older counts extrapolated to 1988 conditions. Thus, the only projects which should be included in Table B-1 are those which were not occupied at the time of the 1988 counts. This discussion may also apply to projects in other jurisditions listed in this table. The result is an overstated future base scenario. COMP 9/6/88 20 APPENDIX B J st :Palo • Altojroject • err,',. s ti.. . • dvances • i n• • -� +.ary_� Perim 9.• If all pees efl. the proposed De Monet industries redevelopment eject could be approved by East Paso Alto by the end of this year. but there sre a last of steps between asow and *ben. The proposal by eye Meet, a Sin Memo -based development compl- y. would trensfos n the Whiskey tuts area nest of the fraaersy from a ceilectioo of liquor Norm p alboslaitams at4lestitareate its Meet bat era ei4On-lipis o rtoe eeIII ilaCtialya dad so it sat auk am- SUD! due. Mateo �'seys. �. A tawinftase n:procesdatt svaidanis imam wooers la tare p pct SI ow :•: M„y r.. i. -. • . e ..' w wf. .1 • 7 a a e p►fa►latieste d attics. ;e: iiifficeity of 4oiag aroanetbiag as 1*U/botel/tbaeater complex. lobe complicated and protracted es re- named University Canes. developmeat th a dry NMI raver- >ioth De Monet *ad tt e dlys laerattne wft i other pr`vbietra. it ledge the i ede v elop t pro- Streets reepoesrule for direct cent is moving slower than expect- lag the redevelopment plan and ed. toeing *bet the Redevelopment 'fie expected to be much far- Agency follows athe legal steps ender along by !sows" said Juliella3. levolv,d. The agency hes the same sent attorney far De 5thael. "Dui membership as the Oty Couocil. we are comfortable that the pro` Much tl'rurrdy hiss been Jeann- ette; is swim forward. TM diy* vilified sly De Boast ebtaia operettas la good tante ..au Mona soldvalve. Ytr s greets. the ars Wayel. Ia April i#d7 Is seaotist e with *pewit adatiaistratos, dt:sd l kw fedayslopawst ere a outdo. lir Stalks. -TM rosdevelopme*t p#aanst*g eludesthe cast carrsady at iossee '. The mosey was past op by De blame se pert ofib> bliwifo ea ate►. Owe the draft cried,. tt wP3 be and So abate le Pilo Alto. aiealr Peek liaise OAMIW. Whys§alrial time Palo Alm l id, steiblase II seat tagllihe loan Mods fa OW ,...A r Tht epe es bare 0 days tai slake ooh dos the amt i R. May— dad strong- • comments are expected cream* asigaboriag ties. sepecfoliy Pelo A►fto. are esscesad otos the aim of tee De proposalMod mad its Wow on traffic �•-�, Irwe public hmariagr wile be meld Oa the draft BR as lbw begat ��. r by t!e sad , ! said• '1a ettode.faatiaromiy MU. bp Pllsss sot PILOJECT. did ie"? • Continued fres d+4 as 1a • legal proO sdiag,' be tied. "Responses need to be in rework of the heariaE" • Streets misdeed the draft EDt only the land use at tie witty Centre area sad atter- Istive ways to echleve the reievei- pa1 of eliminating social. .yrc.l and ecohomk blight.It is not en Elk es the De t proposal." be eroph ed. *After the ctry adopts the rede el omit plan, then the De Nowt will be 000sidersd.« • Alter the Redevelopment Ages- aad City Council approve the EIR and development plan, rat aezt step is a "disposftioe and borvidoptteent agreement," aid a Ws IS the point where fie dr- >i dk of the De Monet pr jeci — its jMte, height of buildings, trarrc im- pact and so forth — come 'fader scrutiny. "If something about lire De West project. Is inconsisteat with She redevelopment plan, OW the agency possibly might sot approve . the proposed project," Streets nit Aa EIR for the project MOM I he more than three looms So "rem*, meets lndlcsted. k also t be possible for the c h) sp. f the De Motet pd by a tare declaration, if at alb wltatn the knits sit the Ant Eideveiopmeat Elk l•• "It`s conceivable the !volt &.ould be approved by the gird of tleg." meets Mild. I` 'We lave taken care to **Stop !pipit se we mad move to develop ;1t. Moog as possible," he .#aid. 'i% nu et redevelopment is rams* SW *idol. physical sod acmes sde to a c s:mualty. Irs MST fast Pak Alto las a Mgt •f ssciat j bas a real need torte r 411111tii�t aceaaak Sae mkt , lfillieteeras override 411110111.11,. . of the �� project estleg -Abodes, at lidding a ,*file WS el r ta fliallbe." •r EPA project troubles planners The possibility of two 1114tory office tower] twits butt iv the theiverary C sek arta of East Palo Alta se m to %Ga do Plus is raising concerns about spill -over traffic it to Meats Park. The Moab Pal Planning Commis/on, in a stud} session last week. lissed a Dumber of concerns. including traffic. drat will be trdsyed to East Palo Also so they can be ad- dressed in an euvironmestai knows t eon sou underway. The ElR will enarniae sloe iBleprecta3 of several sredev ,am aka - serves for the Us/versify Or+t a atria. iadotr- waall) leowo • as Whiskey Bch. on du west lids of the freeway. - • ' A Sea blue* devdopor, jass4s Ikehlones. hat papaw& Weft aboat a • arias square fort of commercial btta'idltaas so 11 eau at University Circle, including two 1$-wve, office buildings. East Palo Alto is expo t i to *tin • dellberstioas on the proposed project this asanrrser, a fitr the UR is completed. !What planning fission 'Daubers is Menlo Perk expressed reservations, den nopped than of the potitiorn takers by the Palo Alto Chy Council. Palo Alto taw - minted tries East Pab Aho consider moving Fay e to that eisy's dated downtown see at University Me v "sod bay Road, One of three Aram la East Pai9 • MMo Muoted kw somialog on*. -mkt sat i; ru e . ., , s of three development scenarios for University Cite: gradual redevelopment oy s type sod male doss edits mom; s a naratar- dal project of 1.2 million square feet, and an even lama emniaa ecial project of 1.7$ million square feet. Seth of the latter two projects .could include huh -rise buildings East Palo Aho offtrtsh expect the redevelopment project to be completed within foot to "is years, with pound - breaking b; she t ni of llu at the earliest The Menlo Park Planning Commission has asked that the Eilk examine impacts on Menlo Park areas, including O'Connor and East O'Keefe metes and Euclid sad !Woodland on ■syshare t:t1er'rai inferchanom st Widow, and Marsh roods, seal on Ike p intg of Moab Park troeidsattts it iw1+irs on Wk. - • —Don &ask ta1;47, � • • pert asz 1 19 e.)a r 7: hgi�.ds pro)� laded down and moved away Lceideeppetegehmeram East Palo A utf wit► sariiadarsts, is than ltoo•sider a sew okereative to !tialo Ako @shins plan—aa abernethy that ias that is substantiary kiss dame lad father away fry Palo Aka ikon proposed. The Laity's comments, developed by the P& Alto Planning c astd mailed Meadoy aight by the Cary Co mcea, acre aimed al a e by as Mom deste1oper Joap+in De Morns sea mid a pastiv+e office -retail project he the arse as Whiskey Galakamedkl�edy trop Palo Ako. - - De Nome has said that his University Circle project would comer around twist W oory high-rise towers wild include office apace. retail me, a hot, movie theaters acid a playhouse. 1114 sio Alto would Wm to sot drastically reduced In sin and PTICiacross Highway 101 dow1'#Dwn Salt Palo Il to Palo Alto would Ikt x ee the pro- d project *midway redid lo sine wish enoved across I j!sway 101 ism downtown ass Palo Alto. Those are moos animas that will be 'isittyed !O LK Palo Ako city ernasis, who limited Palo Ake to identity areas of coa- form menialing hoss thee*,"„,..st akvdop- e seemariee tor she 1 bate :aedrvelota- elrrM site. Considrraeies of -various idevelopoitest akernotives pert of the pro. of adopting s i ts st ohm. Who's abo t tee these d aieeaaatioas that Easy Polo Alto has k Jose@ "is ahtp these ate a® high- ? ��'s.skspaatat siketwitiess." toted P Alio e4riehd Casaal lasses. Typically a PAW of dareatives prassetad wish it'* �' a� air tat�i. Matt m, iferteia tam y toopsins �,� « Ow .rim adoesweawlentmanol imams of • a proposed project eves if the adtaraaives to some degree wield barker with the project's goads. • • in addition to an akeroative that would allow devdopmeat ands eaisti i f 11111.1114. with no square feat gl , the cram two' akernatives are for projects of 1.2 teikion ' and 1.75 million -ware feet with aerie ouni building heights of 273 fret to 350 aware are feet, respectively. Thit the eeleiraisot of 23 to 30 -phis swim Palo Mo Swim project at Page MN Brad and El Caveat) $eel in Palo Mw coming 330A0 slum feet on ai site that, at 11 acres, k Neely rivir as big as the site in East Palo Aka. said city planning thief ken Sdsr+eibear. Unhappy with scope of Eta Pabst Ake's 1 proposals. Palo Alto ii ataggestartg that the city consider a more modest alternative of toughy 600.000 wore feet in downtown Eau Palo Ako. But juu because Palo Aka sanest' A, is East Palo Aho bound so coosdet a ssoaher project at an altogether different rise. a Council rumba asked hloaday Existing case case law walrus Mat that w risk he the priteent mum of action, said City Attorney Diane ?dorthwey. sltho the Moat is East Palo l to's. Cothe other hand. she said, "they qty cotM be sec0ndiaesaed est that tak nately" if the peoject faced a hand chalkier. In addition to saggestiog the ate dove opaecas altentetiwe. Palo Alto it sois- ion ahem whet aspen of she vedeveittpraeeoe plan, iischidisig as st'oi.s rtic benefit and whether baring aisly 2.4 pal,_ tog ewes for etch MO roam Ilse of derelopmeni is enough to )auver" perils* imm kotb dike atsutby ratidestial ant. Coemswats by d.t Palo Also Aiwa nionakehott eke Ntl be farvweio !o lisat Pale Alte. Tomas flora*. she ms`s stet ehNis•lsta. mid Om a Wein as tall as IVO fear probably Ode* %Waal *spewAxealemaost sod ASS oilelliitgrfilest tall also amid oblate for soaralmosts howl eg •N 'Ware b sldtthted4 .; • I. p `w.1 Ti:.11r1 t tt 01111141111111 Q1 14 cat {f��i 101=4114 iF � ��j�• � a��41P1.3 �jHE �• is' 4 1 • Developer disdoScs plant for Eat Palo Alto hlgli.rise complex by lo lly C. NW D -- De Mown * . IlSv4 114she "Xenia** amad lodes tit. F* Palo 00. tlMW Paige he mit pesos* sde to .10 Ave pint Ibia plea to a lior►ert Eon Palo Min' s Whiskey Osith larva e I h -the or - ism seed hati anopiti. Amsted wit% Adz e. tlatet% end o std ,wr+efel of the proles% De Monet tote d: Vitt Aso to ham lessty 1 GOWN se wn WI • .4 orrice. WA sad *to n space. The ,rot. O ct also 'seats io date a te.seivon cities*. thr*I t, $ elexh4Perte sod Most De Moon ..test. *eyelid be the flag doycare maw to es otterr WI*" ht Sae Maenad reataiy. !tic crttrptlert. amithisd oesold two :11onrY e tfiete Nwildittpts, rte !tulle . se a snide Ilse Pew Aker% Aender. son to Pala Aha's **dative Crescen t Perk etetneneho0d. `thin k* Mia ow loan blittidays warp so hive son worte page ow fore gift." thin washy. ateerratk-tinklog detetoe-7r wild the E -a of shoot i9 East Palo Ako vrsadeats oho head Itselinned for the tsewi$. inp 0 OW atahitat's solslih#in 0 die no, dIAitred U>*ardty 'COMM "Te lt hade tuned ttabovi obit theeier gob, to *ft-4weressted: • •Who w ,'rt going to sib'' ar yer tordppht h. sp ereffy grill hiv e yew on.. Mot when sky llglos seno teach on. riot ceervine's *nod Iod heat Matt. Some Nas t they *e re *i kai *ho ot fs* Memel *4 ',taw so *pat Iire Wets their, 1.:3n ttttatetty's '-ttettre ecno aroy• •"h Mt a gilt you're tts fit a ptift writ ruin your' asked Omits Scheir er . *toast speakers asked why the d evdeeps • t11t*, are* a projected price lag of WO minion. co uld nor be Wilt eati of Highway IOl. Thep poi nted of this the petnaneat *akin arses a *now of East Pai n 'fuel es- &:etvds wive of Site highway will matte Univer- sky Cetwre m ore a psis of Palo A,ho than o Ertl Palo Ako. The site. eoatnwmiy l<iw►wo In "Whistle, Gulch" Wow of its hope as.Mn htr of how stores. is f' ooritled by the Un iv ersity Avenue osaetpaasa o Ott eats. Maatdkstratt Awes* alt the west and Woodland Av enoeon the aadsth. ilioreassne Lightfoot* ',Rion said she trot disusayed ilon the depietins of the prom, etim lets wide hotel drar+.en itt the plant of ArStiatlt beefeaters. did on: 'Perko the atone ttacklarv ww d velid diversity of Lim Palo A lt. . whose p0pulotion is Israel* Midge bra cltallenped De Mova s's ~lion that o ffice space is in demand in Menlo Pant and Palo Ako. She (twitte d veatitjties the WPM* th ea iris! be a pellet of office sip rws the totes+insala for decades to Rut ether spseskers defentifrd De Me mel Oho sod they ergo: elicited by the pro s- pect of two p feastin g e(flat high -uses in their cur's bark yat . when kncitester ! !off heated the oro)rat'* drst'artrws, mock of the crowd ap l uded. "°fseere ain't a peeing. in this rCOM who /gas had an ides." .braes e;siaal. "No* he fi Meow has on idea, and we're *hea dy jump- loe on Moo." ,o: Davioimpse , yleo Do Mama pot wiled noaponaa to Ma Oleo le 3.plld !aria 4INory *Wm bvidle s pke a hotel, day c .r o ela wlar. led Selscreen theater assuoisi, ail Its Sllltistkery evicts . • virgb% Streets. East Pal o Alto's woelten, lie aiditir* lir eaistetitalf/lilr retie tinplasertt ad,,1nistrst+a+. said *hips $bdri nk We bnildi wl 111111 0ft Ili Pelt! tptewstions About panting. raffleirMer!�aaMw, At e resides** oonid �lou flat MA* relocation at tnrr nt residents tied r^'' tee • 1111011111114V10111111, the crimple% fr om omit the htetwvy wig a 1dre4sed in an environmental howl rail. I)c Women estimate% atmut what tin andalsy-+wrt$lhtg Past Palo ANa stands tr► pant fawn the project the Imprevltive:. • Tors city'!,-roreercy su hM would ia- •: ra:e.c rimn SS. • millio n to S3)0 million, he %a rt. • Moat than 5.000 games tnrvtt jobs *mild he created, tshetl/ for Dtfee • _revealed for him pole Si apply for these goo jobs, weld Julie . vim president and general c wn& . s1 De Moan Industries. %^ *Tax increment dollars prrated by the. t Palo Aho Rede`eioprnem Agency total 11353 tttiMion over k& years, .dth IVO million dedicated to funding effo:daUt !rsrotuning. Tax iretrtmnsnts are the share of reioperty► tart revenue ie ea3es that sear for redeveloposere agency coffers der the California Community Redevelopment Law. Much of De Monet's piscts to the � !Palo Aho retidents cantered on the pros- ,pret that the development would help the ' city catch up economically rich i:s *Miens ati nbo. , Palo Ate, and Menlo Park. I~k pointed out that these cities` too* hale emulations gooertsing commensal buildrttj that ere more restrictive than Fast Palo Aka's. "Is it better to he a rich s:arrispnsnnity oar, a poor sot imuniter` De mciwat asked the 1 crowd . "i iioink you and we was to set are • for your resister cities about what =saga he dose with careful piaanieg, and yet Myine to awe the unmet *manic and ex. "teitimp devehmeseat its this area is the last aura daMdtas.. "One your neighbors stoat !to sae tires Imispeo is this area, they'll be knocking on pow door for oppenaisitie ." Thep. would be btb b t ero phases.'the first, oatistruaai)ean of ante of she two E towers, would take about IS Thee least of the oo®plest,etr *Dice toner winda 3M-*ec m WSW be built after the limn beading pad gamer sd entomb mew to play for it, hod Dttni Itod apprised chimp* to the lifthway IN oesihbossad ern- avid off - laws d Ustlaraur Ames*. The projoet i .• 'mold moat the roam to be reakpmel a prevent the lbw of traffic through the mom- pktt.. The sunward phase raid take 11 ato 34 • months sr. complete. Raison said. The development unsaid I breed by the spar of University Avenue that wow leads to whiskey Cask's. The office towers would be north of University Areauc, and the hotel sod theaters south. De Monet Industries has a brig road of ° hearings and review to travel before pound is broken, including participating with the city in a year -long process of drafting and approving a redevelopment pen for the propkAed Iuc* ion. A coerfminee of residents. progeny owners and business people • with tits 40 thy Whisb.cy Gulch urea will be formed by- S:pt. I I to consult wish the cite- on the displace- ment of current residents. as it —quirt —xi by redeetiopmerst law. The city s in the process of interviewing cons,oltanes to help draft a tedevelopment plan fun the l i-acre site. A schedule for the project trill be set by the Cry Coinicii at its Sept. d nmetina. . De Moon industries already has mid the thy of Eno Polo Alto SiO3,000 as part of a 1MtII ,sad has peemised two swore payments of 11200,01Xl when the tom— mid final prom olans are ap- proved. • Monet -d - eke ,_. ,...� spy signed are 1i -month inclusive nagotiming ant in Merch, emitting De Monet to matte the firer p gsotai for use of the she. The agree - .smear eaviratantentasl impact report, oak phm and a development awe - matt to tae completed by Stytetabts. MI. If the paperwork its trot tomplmed by then, the thy and De Moo,* may wee to extend the deadline or could eaS waif the dealer s C Changing he#ace of a city ly Mary T. IFertee} :stems Mown waft A developer Tuestsy for the fact Mme unveiled details of Ms planstc ioi a East o`s "IOUs - pad Gulch." at >ayhore Freeway University Avesoe..oto a tam- s with is :s. 1t -story office a hotel. awe, a 1I dee- Ima complex, a performiot arts the- Nam sac 2.100 parking spaces. >Aore than 140 people who heard d e preuaution at an East Palo Alto community forum expressed lied reaction to the elaborate taw fad awl 1u cased del of tie tuatv-elopneDt �u. nitro a hN of COMM _, Baas en owetpowerI g " *c- ! *'� JasQuin De del. ��De Monet In- lkirtries of ifs Mat . **waver. De Moot said he As cfren.l rt tlist the residents' con. cc;; will be wowed out as the project fives through tot redevel- 1. A/though the prop ct er!uld add Whim of dollars to city revenues and provide jobs. some residents Indicated that they are anxious about its impact on the rem of tt De Monet in March smelt as exclusive agreement to negotiate for redevelopment of the Whiskey Gulch area, an 3l -acre retail se - bo►boed west of the $sysleore Freeatsy.1t la bordered by Waist - am and Woodland Avenues. the Uaivtrsity Avesue a erpaa sad may, De Nowt visualized a mammoth complex with 1.2 million !A million ware fleet of ollsce Please see FACE. A•12 dim f/q17 1 • . L ammeiniommewimenwmemismmenweee nsineoenneomp DACE Gatlowed from A-1 Slid two 20. or 224tory office were. Those plans acv( been sled down slightly, to 05.335_ care feet. "E1 wh be the most exciting de. tarelopment in 20 years." De Monet mud_ In less vies. the best exciting development was Palo Alto Square. as office complex at Page 'All Rind and El Camino Real to Palo Mho. gleaaio Park architect Ai Hoover, Mt arcaitect of Palo Alto Square. -elesigned the De Mooet project. to -be called University Centre. East Palo Alto officials recently ren- • amed the Vbtskey Caleb atigboor- ",11voe Unieersny Circle Two Item. Dry office towers. viitb 412.000 square feet of space. domi- . ante the proposed project Shaped ' like to /ogees with one a }de 1 uared loll. they would be connected by a .0m -roofed Wittig Retails shops Jug restaurants would occupy- the -plieria sat. she first two floors of Litt office builde r. The office towers would be at "the ohortbern-eod of the property. A 244 -room hotel. s t0icreen cinema :and a performlog arts theater inroad be ratesed along the souta- tess'ide. Driver on the Rafebo!e Free- way steed have s new_ leadmark a tall clock tower to be built oo 1®e freeway sideof the project. I The complex plex also would feature *day care meter for ores.. De dWOVet noted that it *111 be the fiat fa an office bulldog to Son Mateo Plv814Aarcane are owed be the design of Morriemodern bulidi . which e faced with penile sit e freer level. The estrence be the ptleria would be marble wit! errowghu Iron Mall. There would be 2,100 parkin` spaces be the complex. Color slides slows Tuesday de- pl�cted a festive eovlrosinent. erltb large trees sod outdoor dlnieg areas. De Monet sWI bas almost a year to go under its t0 -month exclusive agreement with the city. During the! time, the developer sod i e Zest Palo Alto Redeve opment Agency will work on the plan and vie If they can come to an wee - Meat If approved.coostrucUooea the project could start la tatld-ice. Tbe first plisse. wbict would Unlade Me office bvlldlags, retail space sod restarrarats. would take 10 months to build. Tbe second phase would take in the entire rest o! the project. It would involve gtmm4 CRitrans ap- prove, to re-route University Ave- nue and to realign the exit ramp from the freeway. The second phase would take 10 to 24 mantes to complete. Rowe der. De Monet would Dot start the second phase Mil market conditions wananted �dice that project t Palo Alto wowed hearth fi- mo ly front rte redevelopment to protection by 2 hi nt, according eed the firm. he explalaaed that, tioder rede- velopment tinsncing. Ike city would gel the locreseed ®raper Mao paid on the project ?1 a tax meat dollars coats mous to 111.2 entities during the fine tare yew of the project's We. Ibratakey Gulch currently ato- mise $' L,400 a year la lr op- :rwa: ty reee of Ii a *0x tome - stein dolfars war be set aside Per e Tait could add op to V million over Ave yam and 140 make over 40 years. Diligent said the project would create 3.200 jobs for Fast Palo Altana ranging from entry level to executive positions. In addition. there would be 600 to d00 camstruc- tlon jobs, with residents given pref- erence. The reaction of residents ranged from those wbo comphme ed De Monet on the beautiful *ass to those who expressed toms that the De Monet project h geared to Palo Alto more than East Palo Alto. laile Lee I►'Ulisms cotmrented. "The project looks like Disa y d and Ens: Palo Alto isn't a®ady for that yet. Our city bas Meal and cultural values, sect these have to bs eeflected." Midge Dorn. who lives s ball - mile from the project urea. re- marked on rte cro*d= an[ traffic jams crested by the big cinema complex ir, MoentaioView. adder.€ 414 can't be bhhcdee by s tea..U1:.: pro$ect. On the positive side. Preto's! McKoight called the plea "very beautiful." sod said. "1'd ;Ike to wake up and look at that more jttian what 1 see now. -We should ask whet We can do to help the development. not what the development can do On us." M Knight said. Rochester hoes soled that pests were Ju$t preliminary. mad pfd: "Ali we reed do is take a loo* at it and get on borne. Even If It goes broke, U will hook Dever than soli." Mere uat the aver le all your problems." De Monet concluded_ "Ws a Van. Once your aelabors see �{�Wass kippering I" ye *own. believe Me. glee will be biocklate On your door. Uttivessity Owe t only a man_ s&y a • •� •• !` � •'• • s 0 - . • .• ••• • . .w • r• .• • 136 • • 0000* •.w .. • ►w w. • Mita • woo • 4$.••• hj.� A' • 7 V r•� ~ �rt _ •• •♦ , • $. • •10 • Fr I I I I "Ifr 4'.*1 .10 1 V.. 04 le. , .4 �a •• • . or .'. I. 1 •.• +r .4 -. ',if a ." ...t,k, - -I rim: 4°.'. ' ' '419•043/0,6% p p.r .err Dv Mon . ,gay, his olfie? . plan for Ea,1 Pn lo Alio wr.sllitt Ole hirih n trove t!'orp► Unlvprylay AvenU e-8ayshore lntNrchr►nge . • . +, .+ ti 44/ • ••..,rw 4 •„•r w• . • . .., • w. • ,.'� M• V .• • ..ww ''' ''"11011011000pimpuipmed per v•w.. Are •r— gnV • elk 0.11011111041111110 4 ti. • - d+ gams •••.rr • ., -M ;; 4.1 • 40010Parre .,••r; w .••w•01110 e+.+. 4110 .r .•. •.y* w.... ..1• y • . . ti •{ Ali meg * .y�.Al•� I I• • + `•r 000, 0. y 00—. ..a. •.• • •. .� . •481.410.Mme'+'"'"`; . !W ry ..�.w•.... y` • e+r MP M 0.4•4 >e ytiJ we- * • • • • .1•••• •... ....2. 404. t "Sit • e i it • 1 _: • 4 ' • 3 •`1! • • 1• F tr • • • • tr rL s San joae .Merc ury News, Wednesday morning, August 5,1907 •• l Section Z State walla / o unt•al n Vlew • Los Altos • Los Altos Hits • Palo Alt East F.A. high-rise Ian unveiled ay Joao Wolfe MIME tiOsel WIN faustbasad sikappiNg strip is trast Pak NSA Od d will �e ee tie l stlaryrr toms. a 21. -rem a Ittserbss dame ems. a co w waft fir. a muff, n rmt,' - raft awl stop ![ a Us M BMs ribrosiapsea Oka sew la bra Wag a sesdat, drivels. sell Wm. do- �JowlsDa Mem se amy teaaYmbi as siaNifeete aka far Ms id4s w Iktrissity Oar , irtic o souk' berow Ps is Ake ssed lr ak Pert at Use pisc saa of may 1St sad Un iversity Avraee. De llomteth 'Rebelled ttan was gored to cuatinc e Sot Pate Alto that the rope ilissid be ar l itegartant fIICai sal wasnow ie* bowl for ale rarnranwuty- "AN the taus woundyou art doin g well Yoe Mow that Ua rarity Cesare bas tr emolo s yg' LMA MAIi d at waged el snore *as We le Oa East Pale Alto Oty litvil climbers. qty Cuss is not od y the way t ot Pala Alto bat alb the pale - way to one of the tdoSeat orecent rations of odscatiarn amd woaRk, said tae Ma ntra, wha beads De Mort Industries "Waive bees very palest This burn it's East Palo Alto's tw a to carry the t orch " Crowd reactive to the project was Biked. ram from akeptilcsto meanest. 'The project looked likes a Disneyla nd - type of won too me . Dot Pak, Alio la rasa re edy fir diet, became the asst of the city wool watch B," raided !site Lae Witham said Thomism l.igtaltaate "lbw airr " We should eta asst tier as soma combs is to take awe of es. ... ?*e d • Maas such wicking a It sal . oriel and er- oge nic values. These mot be ea[iart, whatever we de Bat liter Aso dot a cured appl ar, labia Oa Mod •p M tell U (soled, 'ladies awl anthems. you heal wrist (De rim et} Bid This r sot a Ito We have the •pport •rfty ter dhow Di ve tYa a+ev a dom e." See TOWERS. Pope 2 UJt�rJ1j4fqvti F�r�Di MJ 4111A lati [{Er �!E���jdluii!ttfftrftrtJii!ii!ic.: ri ff) s-IifeFti; lf�t,� fo Umber's s pry $325 nsillion University moves • #y Mary T. Penney 1Fasaa `der own ?be Zak Palo Alto Z#,edevelop- *. t Agency Wednesday approved Ibe preliminary plan tor red vel- t of the Witt y area ewer the **Moe of wavy NSW limos protioeed *bonier the De redevelopment project pro - by De Monet-iadl ries, sae Mateo. coafitcted with the Mrs Ali nit vote wee .3.1. wltb Mouton el sting. The ag+eecy is cam - posed of the saw .secs a as Dry Council. ldember Jobe Beak sensed the gulag because b's away era carat . e Monet has ea 1141seelb ante- sive agreement with the d to aa" dale a plea to redevelop the ey Geich sue. now called trade. gbe area. wog d Ressiray. eats es the 000 M ect at Urivendly imam m Wede,sday maatbec was devot- ed Wetly to laplsg the preen- mos. emaggirehoninem qa a *try petrel scat•meat et the id tied axes aid ow De *.st settler ammeeced a resetericttwo Meow lowers coneelateg 1.3 d aka ef cenuesritilsad a* epees aidsMenem Sala • fle a pkin he present a ape - toecap' Ine sad le ism aceerilas Miss asale: t ce repeeled yid Monet b Ina properly owners ale �� lapelis SWtel• car Ilh t • Let Palo Alto edeirojcipmpnt forward •Ilarbere Mouton ... oasts dissenting Me. 11 (tidal recogelze the emirabor- lhilleckat.thesite- geirgue knees. redevdopasset adardnistreter. implied the plea was mewistentwit A the lead sine sad ee- sic development imam et speossi plea. "Iillat *boot pope seat here toe Se snit c410 of like nieway3 gibe speed their mossy ever Serer Mostae asked. -?, *eel west to dimity �e drsa and arm it ac5 as met le it Normaaspp was selyaamoral isceresal, Swims add. "It deswtstOka 1apro- posed bmit Est10Spoweedar el dile& la 1beown rt tleenlisp 108 a_ lad Oft Sep brand ittelms •• • Mouton then advanced the idea of extending the erect are* to Eu- clid Avenue. where East Palo .Alto borders Menlo Park. Suck a change would bring a awruber of apartment hopes lic the redevel- opment area. At prevent tte erect area stops at Wsebattab Avenue. except for a *snail jog to take In the 7 -Eleven food store andago-operated laun- dry across the street Streets said the University Circle sires was drawn to as to take to an the coriunercisl properties. Icclud- tag the additional area would cre- ate more p. ohlems In relocating tenants and would fore the rede- velopment process to go back to scare one, Streets salt doal went to cause resi- deats ea the edge of the projecl ane to be epri. cted." egeoccy mem-- biz Wareell C.sb said. "But if the a is is forestall the prefect .� tbee y, Ore. everythi: g late Ie pot and maize h .A" Agee► Mimes hems Pilakey agreed that espeadiag the area -emeid odd anther boaeo ei lle.- ISS sew housing for ap rby/M t tes- Ma, sad ldta. declaredbe was !apposrl rittAgency member Rubes Abrie s rid. 'What we're iatg today Is the bai rol & If we get Ise ar% detail 1s *e post now ��weed ageing a w- eed promo& a procedural metier of letersekeg Ike auditor, IMISOINOr gird See mineeter 01 hao Mateo Cushy 'sad his stoic Deer'd of Steudizenesa.tE Pale Alto is prop plea Me huuUsivendiy Oak aisit t Vallikollis i► P 1e oe6 111 Vic• ` ' lb wee acs WWI len � a4 ...Alf. • -. . +.. • VW -,m11101 •al01YR*a awe vs .r' s" a p+r`r.o' a .+ • + .r "Po itH -- T crib enbiglibusioall"4""rid 4.iie s aesd from 4-I Me city decides to ire teem Wm. meat finastlng for 1St protect. In other action, to : • Voted spew forming a spe- , dal mittee to sew the rear velopment agency is u advisory I - Tip** eiget steer guts ear seems ...e....:. �.u.++� ... 40441 .per. • residential retocatioa plans *3d draftily as environmental Impact estate — s There was esteastve debeste Out the proviefoo that De IMoset ave.; to cover die city s expendi- tures tures lip to $300.000, with expeadi- twee beyoad that reitabumed est Me eveloper9s discretita • Agreed to **Mee applicants r eta eat tend aiseelai Ada at °ousel o t .cast► asst w ..�... of the strata overlyi ti oalt mitre, .se hand seam This a of the strata atom substantial image to hone, midis, other wruetrars3.ompossmis of homes and idings. Subsidence can abo sure liskbon s mud the • of $torundwa ter and surface prods. Keysone flied adios la the US district foyr the nineteen Dietri a aoateadiag thva Union or of the Subsidence Act aoswituted a taping of their ate property by 1sgiiking 50 percent of the coal math wractutes to be kept la pleat is order to • ;%ide surface cavort. The district court *acted -,stone's takings claim. They stated that the as served 'slid public Outpost on appeal. the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third r,. Knit affirmed the district anus t ailing and held that . FutatiO"" and statutes protecting starlike mintier' from t sidenct damapt did not constitute an invalid exercise ,r eminent domain power under the Fourteenth vrieridment let the opinions of the Supreme Court, delivered by �useicc Steens. the Coun held that Keystone did not .at,sfy their burden of s ing that Sections Four and Silk of the Subsidence Act and the regulation's SO percent reek constitute ■ taking of private property without compensation in violation of the Fifth and Dunecntht Amendments. The Court found than the coal rc+trpanies Marti dig Ted that their mining operations, cr e►er. specific mitres, have been unprofitable since the max, law passed. nor did they present evidence that miens an specific location affected by the SO percent ruts ha, been unprofitable Mother issue addressed by the Ct' . i *1/1 ''pettier the raining companies had the tier to enforce generations -04d damage waivers. The Coix rukd that the companies had no each right And the the mats requirement that thine operator* assume Arian:nal teponsibility for the repair of damaged st!‘u:tutrs was a valid regulation and an effective deterrent to operators causing any dement Sumas. 'art Haan %Sa diet Machias Case The VS Supreme Coun has agreed to hear an appeal b+ the eity of Lakewood, Ohtior segardinn the restriction of coin-opvated newspapet vending machines on city sidewalks and other city property (City of Zakri ooh t: Pam Dflitkr Bibs Ca, No. U-10$2,) to a hest brought by the cad Atlrido Deer chafing the conititeeimmlitt of Lekrativirs eastnctions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Simh Coma either eruct down Lakewood's tmuniciptl asedinaetot OS vi that First Amendments protection of Inimilom of tom. Sakenood. a air tutelar Cleveland with a population of 40a companies socking to react city amt) llee the placement of sa spapee ash*, machine to o!oes opsou threes location and design from tit dy s WttttAai wee* board. Lakewood ftih er *wind eawspopee sampasies to atutt and indemnify the tF flout any resulustt Works. nit * mat held tiara Lakewood's meows imps} parbad the taste unlimited dimes** ass sew* or *Wag premiss tef the plueentein of the t: ° "4- 1444, �La110�1{a/C►a .. Due to the large count of litigation surrounding loaf emulation of ;paper vending machinei, ir, its appeal, Lakewood is urging the Supreme Court to issue what it lass a 'definitive" Minn to help clarify the wiidity of each haws. Dies Office Tower Dayestsed A developer in metropolitan Waashingtott has as the proposed height of an office tower in half. from 6'to 30 stoles, after a long and bitter bank with the Federal Aviation Administration, the Air Line Pilots Association. e National Capital Planning Commission, the federal Commission on Fine Arts, and the National Park Service_ The apical turning point came when the FAA ooneh 4 d that die tower would pose a safe hoard for flights to and from Washington's National Airport. Although the FAA could not halt construction of the building. its determination made the structure uninsurable The tower, originally planned for 60 stones. Mess part of a massive new development just outside of DC. in Priam George's County. The project, called Pon America, includes .,2a0 housing units, shops. a hotel, and a waterfront promenade It was also to include over 1.7 million square feet of office space and a marina for over 500 boats. Now the office space Will he cut bazi. The office tower, if built as planned, v►ould ha+r been the tallest building between New York and Atlanta. Groups like the National Capital Planning Commission —which oversees federal interests its the Washington area —the U.S. Commission tin fine nets. and the National Paris Service denounee4 the tryae•. laying it would overwhelm the wash,.. kith Monurr er. and the capital skyline. Frederick Han of Ow U.S Commission on Fine Arts sold the li1sah;1gron Ass; the`. allciwine the toner to soar ..200 feat higher than the Washington Monument would, be "an act of vasrdaltm to the national heritage." The regional dire -tot of the National Park Service testified Wort the cxunr+ planning board that the towel Mould ' pertsnamentl., ire ;.ably. and severely overshadow the capital's monumental l cote In residents, the tower to )0 stories„ the developer beau es shy design will accommodate the FAA's contemn about air traffic safety. Although the FAA has not tam a final determination. the sgen ys spokesman. &Ohon Mares, brlieves the erdesign alncts the earlier COar wiosas about sfety. The MA rarely finds a tail buNdieg to be a safety hazard and does +nut consider the question rinks die animism's height road;: sonschow affect airline flight patterns. FAA experts told the Ilissitingtorn Pox that they could tall no is idetta! 01 planes Wane skyscrapers other than the rash of a 1:1 booties that struck the 'Nth and lath floors of the Empire Suet gild* is MS, P,.bf tttoat Special Districts Zanies codes. like site U.S. sax Cods; are written for special interests and mew specie! pbjev. Beanie of i ii► Nodal Seta* dinars art very needy. Pie* lo?i, f '• st Lefe: fr u�(� � te i�' � # t�E � °4i c A11111 8I1iIt i 1 C rialiiia.Ts4,1iIIV it .'�'"' ---a �;��i� IfR• R . �^ t 1-g '0 roA 110411. i iffit 1111 Ee 1I1I aill iiil Ill; 3�� l����i �� � �� �' isav sp !r?ei €, ,f,f Olt Fliene VIP1/111111111 �71�IF{Eit�1 �r?E te[i �_�y�i ft �hgltirEl'illiii•miliglekl� EF��7 ��i � i � �fzerr d f1`ti fibi "�•f El'�-tt��1to'sz o�t fi ��1 tai � eiij t �� €. � f� j; �e � I _f[�ttlr_�1 ligg• 115 111110:q 311141 ..„. itrod4. 1. iv Er' ILI. tr. i ig". "L its "IL { Pgit -F I IMO • • 4 :. - , - - • • East Palo Alto office lowers could strain relations with PA itr Dos Metals i isty Gulch.* small retail strip in East Palo Alto wedged bets the d.ysieort Freeway and the times of Palo s wed 'desk Park. w be redeveloped later firt office towers sad a herd wader a project low by avk maimed San Maim developer. The dotes , labia- s "ate 'welcomed by % Pub Afar offtt4mb mime the kind of development imsded for put the tour oity ten a fin liatwaial footiet6, will almost rvesainly tit iiMations with growthissawelons Polo Ake and warm vi -emcee opposing* flow soarip remiebou of Polo Alto axed Maio Park. The Me se Palo Also City Comm* alith6 as Os bard of anions of the Mrs ade+nlspmeiet Adtsm d ea tip Monti Women Monday ni; hi. March le, to kilo .o oat out the details of the mas*i{rt c oolgiCia project. De Mont los planned a project that would too rul demolish rise misting COMM:Kid sem in eta Gvkii and replace it with II milhos to 1.5 mid some ban of rommercill and retail mace auger f g auk monk ao tatinwad f lD mires. ` - `f The Project. UNOCIrdial to is Palo .Aire off. . : brdtede two 3bitory office ewers. two Oemory office ins, a Mum Wang. end a Meows keel ll' emparted. 6 *mid he bolo b phials over the matt scree puss. One Polo AMMfsdal said privately dear. sMotirathuaniiad tawny deaire>a so tee feast Palo Ake ale .so,, siege would be "ewe emit a poles. with rwoodaios aid fameinaref per 11) 4h' 4/cleZeleig .7/////27 ... s • A responds to EPA buikling plan Pam Pete 3) . . Crescent Park reeideau. •And, to est. - trxtel mid. she Palo i%ho City Council raid hew a back up its constkoents. issue ssue WOb" 3 ev visual impul of the otutti-story prbjct aa.d Mr devslopmcnf .; 'Inspect on the nearby row retv►ork, par• Ocelot the titrac-vrry intersection of 3 Among in Whiskty Candi, inland Avenue, sad University Avenue k crosses *k creek to become a19 over. over theliorhore Freeway. Palo Ako City Council c be'r Freak atiltttsd. a send of Perk, mid c'reposed pject s "stagger*. I'd c to see sower hippo dim nosid be tie Jot Eon Pilo Alto. OW the pro ) is totally : of " He oreditend ion s f O® every itragenory Osaka b Pain Ako recd Menlo Park." o Ken SSA. ft» Ao's threats, of bhuinieg. was start optimistic but sitandell dew eke 'W (PaoAlmlo gm di the isovne here Vino" desire devtiogrotelditylocitgais b Ike Xi peen end lion Petra Alto is s cline #o lhiti." to V Psl Abe » ?do 1 k k timed its ., a . ;-s lugkim to the , eosaeros gm amt the i.lpects dike proj- ttlit~lca- ed due false Alta situ Gw- • tuft site of Moe Whiskey proposal. i to nth ere eye heated oscouropiog develop. Meal.. — P Alto leas co suds reetrk- dons. Alto esul tl its Mom inset is it early i!70► offer o cky ide tfeformith ro defamed a pro bdevelopments downtown }tile Alta►.) E Polo Ake soy they ve Lie Mond Ind■ anti is itflee s of ac - side ®oft, if oat di. of 11 moth, ifl ie sward few {tit **- mg soil IDlift t Its ilendopemmi aet�n •pw..• tar VIP". sP .At - .s , ... Palo town the me. the a s. l Palo Aho Acting Cott. M lams ms realizes the political rs tiot?4 of sett 91 proje , but oho not the ing road network 'maid R"' geseitovet} acetified become of the eland improvements or tai, madams easy not tale kindly to jog tse the ek [roso listed peony le the tin west Park oriq bborllsod. Psi° Ad's S1) -foot height link ovoid eredovi $ project even approaching .Iran_. r - P - r. • • ' Alb - * • •.r r was y..y r • .r • r. mt.. . r• •. • . w.. w .a+..••.. fat move than dame pars. Joaquin De 1Mo ut. the prelidwu of lbe • ,company. amid his 1i -yaw San boo - based company has bulk projects in Texas, Los Angeles and San Jam. and is in the pro- cess of complains two projects n Son Mate*. One or the San Acne protects. Century Center. includes 2$O.i»O square firs of of- fice ad retail aware in a sin -story bind .and a t0-stvr.• buddies cm the bay aide of the $rihore tramway just monis of the #fislswrtej 92 i terehastse. A woad . :'i% Masao Omer. It locoed No mash 'p -ear aa■ee - mad Ischodes ten- and g toe-way beildiags, awl& a leeatl• y )..1141 =2 a be ow itlgs art - - rorttiao. The fan Pals Also twojact oras#d be hail in throe or more pleases. with octant onntrttctian of die pees anspittod be - Omen dear and seven years fawn saw, if till alees bcsovii.s to plan. ' 'e -. Wt." De Maws avid. *Well era plteene wrie dew b Is■aed stm) Winery) gets so r twre." please are Ai der slat Palace �aAb- pret�jnet_issa l he Mohan bassi Ar_..~ett1runary t�t. �. t rite' ism* ilievelitsmasa es ale et Sas a .A. • s +'.OA .. A. erai+s&;.-ifi.•'4'! Ate. j mo/!e`. • Mateo. said the De 1 So.r 1erojects 1�R7 e cot bye, tteD eo. by -city iefl, the Phinahts Commission and City Council. De - Nona, sloe une project. was tamsful to setting louse land mooed from esidential to COInMetsial. not an a*1) thins to ac- complish on she Peninsula. "l,f looked like b geubity develo at." Coleman said of one of De fMonet's projects 'thee a was proposed. "and k try out that way. They`te quoit', projects and mere happy so film hire l■ ger en "e i !r; ENEIAI$. laying the W thatRI$EEY GULCW car be the trump card in the generally poor Palo Alto officials Must play with as they do battle with m- ewled city woes. l8 it is played. rat, the city can clean apt and the advantage tan be shared by all its residents TUN man who wants in is Joaquin De Motet Ls De Monet Inds lac. of Ian Mateo proposes to transform the 11 - sae commercial area west of the My - shore Freeway at University Avenue Into s mammoth office, relit sad hotel tromplex. In place of what ge eraliy are 1,marginally ill shops, De affect eavisloas 1.2 Wilke square feet :zombi! and eommorcta1 space and a Iota • With the project comas Se prornlse of a tin new jobs and a stall of extra 'property, sales and hotel taxes that imald bemired' of thawands of dol. Ian aaiiusily. There afro is the chance commercial sad could aresd . :scion the UalversityAmu* laminalsos asst nt the fromy. are same IlsOttniale nsotwrisa, e.: cards right too. Os. la what is to become of the arrees current merchants, many of whom are tenati. Will there be a place for Mom In De Model's plasm Will rents be 10o costly? Perhaps city officials can advocate gevia* some 01 them the first shot at being pa`'l o Ebe vow project Another worry is that virtually all the new jobs wit go to people living outside East Palo Alto It crakes some for both the city and business operators (0 em- ploy local residents rather than those who must commute on the crowded Dumbarton Iridge or Myseore Free- way. A mandate for amploying a certain percentage of City raskle:its can take a sizable bite out of East Palo Alto's mom playas* rite mod pride new oppor- tunities for local youth. For employers, it can alleviate worker teatimesds. 30 commetethce tic marls. Nero is De Meal opportunity fer the leadersiVelir cites to show that they ma handle a matter of potentially majestic . impact. They con prove their critics wrong and i the same time poiat Fit Palo Ala la the rift was Wow) • krea's: ?uture tit Issue tuge changes prop el roof E. Palo Afto Illy Nary T.1Fae r Pinnies Tribero self A redevelopment project pro- �d tar Palo a?Jto's Whiskeykl could transform the dila- tor area of small shops asc ply hiuldiass into a ananmott Mee, retail and hotel complex aid sharply Increase the city's _ • _ _ WI property tas revenues, But Se erect also could malt 11 -acre area, located west of a bays*ore Freeway, Into a may Itr Palo Alto." rather this East Palo Alto. JAad the -:,. ad 4,242 jabs could ead wp . snow* whAes. somber *ma • the mks. Ptlepwattt s and other who Ave as the Au aideMe freeway. taduttalss lac. of San lea, 1ta11s for crestrvcttau of two 20- alum filmy Once Ureters costaintai 12 retail space, sod a 220 -ream te*.:C.,str*ctueo would be -hver few to IS 't debar protect ewe of Ow ierimet ea Ilie /t would have tart • It x.14 WHISKEY a►. AMINO Cootaised Oro a A - OW OW* aid 11 IOW Mkt go Ito Sheatara Saab tie Pilebsoloo ,eyrie v Odd bet biller Om asp Mos to Pals De Most is proddlifirt, Seeewili U� Meet,declines to Memo s lei Cfair detail tuff tit* Last City Goomc Ws Marc! If 011 0 111411 la elsel soin 11011101101414 1114114900 wit% libe di tar De rMpwetlt. • of mo ue was lie ebeet triliZtreseevialies 1.1 seek le Oiatakwlt l — wee wore palms prepefty swum. 110021000 1s end Mgr lasses r pretsettse seprMrt evit. 11 loscooseof n lee lspatttetat. Pr operty swats, soio4 lists beta Watts#p D� a t* l ast Reif Oyes. veto * sttlas era bow ute ri Soy WO soot prep neat . .sNW* ere* wad it t►4011 prooatAy ' io lop op:* oao Wa le odd. The aelebierboed Is a sexed bas of mall bostoresos — a wit shop, lw'iwoo* Om s nee kern. rostasemils sad totta. em Nei plate, sad tbe Does? Meru that ewe isyeaMs none. Mulkey Gedr! ®saes tam is thole — eta fs tics as 46 Mr, that less remade sod flee lash. er4s4 w. 'fast Permed , have mad the A4 Weer Stem "Ida 1 stn $ corseielese M *5 ares. Liquor wee were +O Crated In Whew/ Gillett Sang er nitric. tlos lamed by Stanford llalverrl- ty 0robibited `a. sale of " in Pete Ate. dolly, tit! bare abd IIgooC elves WM. choleroid eleen Pey, owe et t1e lverelly Aimee, bet Is • 1t ".fib Woo means Weed to move to c way taw Otto ?fowling M ME► M Aazriry srshonn aaa Thor Wj 1 IONS Of ESN Pam AMe. which cl y cfileklis raw* f ataill$d "3lnlr erifly Chrolo," M ne stled on the went a de of the Boystooro Fr eeway. Petite /ill the Ustverrsity Aveees du' Wiwitey &es we tisted ea tbe 1Nd dock of ttntvet' fifty Aveiro., west ea. fray. When it was ,wit, East Palo Alto Civic ollklsl Wed tlie new two. way. A sootiness ter the Raven" woad liters sad p "wo n't Piave to make den bera kit tuts at and o ff the ldlfthway gray mo re. The evrrpRw r raid connect the two sides and people wttl'WV thinking of the Aey+hore sa a Lanier to Emit Palo Alto." i1 didn't ton so t that Bray. The eteeway farther divided the twit mod whit !brows of Pont roles Alin. said the proposed ra dsveoopttrest cord tetenst?y thaat MAWS. Anthony E. ilarweth, ei citfr director nit Pain Alto Park Muscle - Una. reprementing last Palo Alto npu rtmenM owners, is convinced. that will happen... "Prom * develspen ataadpetat 1 do n't think of it as East Pale Alto." Maraysth said. "I see ! ant a anteway to Pain Alto. Any develo i. er worth hlg snot re alit s one of 1110 lest pinePs for a development is near n fre eway otirnmp. The de. v ckeper will pitch It air a gateway to Pnk, Alto." Fait P.dn Atte Mayor ' '!Minis Mouto n +told the redev elopntent • proposal "eine , ray - pile* and some veleta tilt are asiodifs. "Geatnticattoa will swab tW people working third will be reeved out," she Mild . 11 sr art a emoti ve -- peepholeslah self hobs sad beetoessea sitlt dawn se direct co niegvence of redeye ep. "1 cee see that the prefect *VI by predominantly white. In the begin, ninot. It old tort reflect Mb e munity." Merchant; I I'11Ia ty 01110 * pressed mixed teens. *boot the repe at Gerstein* Enright, et eit Crescent Oesn.vi le dellettiaed WS. 1 OM ifue sisal le era sod mem Wit last Neely sod 1r Joys* 1 eperraton it Gi$4W s Oakwood Iler 4/.s eases positive step -sad *odd plan to relocate is tae i`premed tionest Y : l• itemoare Eddie MMYIab whe tsos tmenalsd Van lb ws& record Mora tor 1. y am son ihe proposal se Nene& out east Pale Alio aid the esercesslaw wee a rose Rha dset Sat ," as salt. 'Why have the cfevelepaisat here, i1 this pry dersteasey thick eaten? 1 would be s Wee arras to slat to pals Al* sod riti OM that .Part wield 111111 Maw Odd° Is labia tarq. Vice Sant Palo AI. will seat he s illyPlay mem leaWhim at . Seeress betimes the lima" , Chel, owner et the lima et Visa NM its seriosity keeps the de r la- her drip kicked Wool 0 problems* mitts street people sod • burgisra Clam said her shorn arse Ills bet Neck et I is Imae11.. Ares Met is amble tees , Asa.. • litairit W siverds Ma srssti tee salw'A' le Las Altai sad mancomindies m oo at rode velap eae k 3Selo rt He said redevelopment Wee se adva rie to the developer be , came the dty as arm ltat power . eminentdomain to acquire lant elt yes havea bloc% o dry pert ode la me ores to be derreope: de oelo s«sr cavil force pee is tai Mrl1 Noir property,' O dors salt mint1 4 redorseloptneat agency am the lard by eaalnerat du ?,21A moll K 1. the developer. This tq, es sevastapae to the uevetepar in saresbileg parcels* , a °fee lsdicated that tie pr poeed prated old mesa a tre- mendous increase ,a property tasstn fovea,* to East Pal o Vito. :91 • er, the added menet . tie ,Massed only for capital Ii 't . Meita. Per Iasbaace, Belmont re : dasctopanenthas bladed s $1.2 aalh lift sealer water sad a shselllleW' doilsn w ail of st orm drain Milo Orton said gaol in WNW- sd redevelopment beal m 1f la s way le cowl the type of deveior meet desir ed by the city . proverneft ..wilts owls we straw. tee. loose development hp mere . ! tat arms stars . ; a ndel to ■ tea* tie! sold•. Anus. t e �gp r+eierAlli 1 office *pee is short sweat mid agar fb ,room sweets as tar as tax hewn; sod character et lad Pale Alts, tt, Aa sU"Ianer+cteal s tai sot. ovoid pine n Sledded bmeN to the dire may. • Jluo ,1I. seers c stasapro behadee that the - Infect. Wald doubts iba clay's ,m ass* tes t "waft taxes aad maid hip ensile Wee Ms hamrewe reversal by throe is five N Soap sets .bo a year tress ,Rh Mee then baif of that analog teem the Whiskey Getkh whoa. Properly tam ter the airiest Ile - ;sal year are a■fkasted et 113 sib 01111 Grua, s NOM ttlsflMl' Oil tare Mayer et lelssiesto M Ns. *dll+ar sr1t9e redevelo pmeet ti•' Wells an eery costdef ecc ve friga eltle s They bring in ,mere Is tans s them are sassily paid :it la ,rant keno." Amy redevelopment profeePi would take more than a year tee work Rs soy farm. the city per'' view** of psi hearings and ro- view by the Pleaning Contrabelost ind City Ciie d . .••P The first step le the Wkisketd Gulch proposal will be taken at th1P March le areetlna of the Revede fopen ent Aaenry. Then the trite f Co �aCll, steins a I to a 'lac , 0M decide whether In Oro Do btea4( life seeltwere right onleitiale tM redevelmIng W) )a y G arcia. • •