Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-11 City Council (13)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 11 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER MAY 11, 1998 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR:230:~~’~ CiTY OF PALO ALTO PROPOSED COMMENTS ON UNIVERSITY CIRCLE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT .DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REPORT IN BRIEF The purpose of this report is to report on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) prepared for the University Circle Redevelopment Project in East Palo Alto.. East Palo Alto approval of an earlier project at the same location resulted in litigation initiated by the cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto, with the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association joining the City of Palo Alto as plaintiff. A Settlement Agreement approved in 1991 limits the City’s discretion in responding to the currently-proposed proj.ect. The report summarizes staff concerns about the project and recommends that the MaYOr be authorized to sign a letter conveying the City’s comments to East Palo Alto by the May 14, 1998 deadline for public comments on the DSEIR. CMR:230:9;~Page 1 of 6 RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to the City of East Palo Alto conveying the City of Palo Alto’s comments on the Draft Siapplemental Environmental Impact Report for the University Circle Redevelopment Project consistent with this report. BACKGROUND Draft Supplemental EIR The City of East Palo Alto has circulated a Notice of Completion for a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the University Circle Redevelopment Project. The public review period ends on May 14, 1998, at which time the CityofPalo Alto would need to submit written comments on the adequacy of the DSEIR. City staff has reviewed the DSEIR and evaluated the proposed University Circle Redevelopment Project for consistency with the Settlement Agreement approved in 1991 by the Cities of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto, the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association and others involved in the litigation. Prior Redevelopment Plan In November 1988, the City of East Palo Alto adopted a redevelopment plan for the University Circle area. The area is generally bounded by U. S. Highway 101, University Avenue, Woodland Avenue and Manhattan Avenue, comprising 12.2 acres of development area and approximately 11 acres of Caltrans right-of-way. In 1990, East Palo Alto approved a Specific Plan and Planned Unit Development (PUD)for the project area, with a Final Supplemental EIR also being certified. Prior Litigation and Settlement Agreement In December 1988, the City of Palo Alto, et. al., and the City of Menlo Park filed lawsuits against the Ci.ty of East Palo Alto, et. al., over the various actions taken.to implement the redevelopment plan. As a result of that litigation, a Settlement Agreement between the City of Palo Alto, Crescent Park Neighborhood Association and the City of East Palo Alto, Redevelopment Agency of the City of East Palo Alto, et. al. was approved on July 22, 1991. A Summary of Terms of Settlement Agreement lists the major provisions and categories covered in the full Settlement Agreement (see Attachment A). Major provisions of the agreement included: General limitations on the project and definitions of uses to allow up to 665,000 gross square feet, comprised of 460,000 square feet of office, 15,000 square feet of retail and 190,000 square feet of hotel; Allowances for reallocations of uses according to stated traffic restrictions; o Prohibitions of any industrial uses andof hotel uses on the office parcels; CMR:230:97 Page 2 of 6 Maximum height standards Of 155 feet above mean sea level (MSL) for the offices, 120 feet above MSL for the hotel, and 25 feet above finished floor (which can be 30 feet above MSL); A 125-foot setback for the south office building from the centerline of Woodland Avenue; Maximum building footprints of 75,000 square feet if building height is 150-155 feet or 80,000 square feet if building height is less than 150 feet;. Parking garage restricted to the rear (toward U. S. Highway 101) of the site; Limitations on construction hours and noise; and Requirements for ~PUD Permit Amendments, Building Permits being reviewed by the Chief Building Official of Palo Alto, verification of construction measurements, occupancy permits, lease provisions and further CEQA review. Current Project The current project proposed by University Circle East Palo Alto, LLC, consists of 460,000 square feet of office, 15,000 square feet of retail and 190,000 square feet (230 rooms) of hotel uses in three office buildings and a hotel around a central open space and plaza. Two of the office buildings would be located along Manhattan Avenue, with retail between them and at ground floor levels facing the plaza. The third office building would be adjacent to ¯ the University Avenue overpass. The office buildings would be six stories in height and the hotel a maximum of eight stories. A total of 1,580 off-street parking spaces would be provided, mostly on two levels of underground parking, with a future 153 space parking structure proposed for the north portion of the site later if needed (refer to Attachment B). The project would involve the demolition of all existing structures in the redevelopment area. Construction of the proposed project is scheduled to start in spring 1999 and be completed in early 2001. Neighborhood Meeting On April 29, 1998, staff from the Planning Department and the City Attorney’s Office attended a meeting of the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association at the Association’s invitation. Representatives of the applicant and the City of East Palo Alt0 were also present. That meeting was after the City Attorney had reviewed the project for consistency with the Settlement Agreement and after staff from the Planning, Transportation and Public Works departments had reviewed the project and the DSEIR. CMR:230:97 Page 3 of 6 DISCUSSION Evaluation of Consistency With Settlement Agreement The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed project for consistency with the Settlement Agreement and has found that the proposed project is~ consistent with the Agreement. While the proposed square footages are the maximums authorized by the Agreement, the proposed office and hotel building heights of six and eight storiesare less than the 155 feet and 120 feet maximums in the Agreement. The proposed project is consistent with other provisions of the Settlement Agreement. Consequently, the City of Palo Alto does not have the discretion to oppose the proposed University Circle project. Evaluation of Draft Supplemental EIR Staff has reviewed the Draft Supplemental EIR, focusing primarily on the sections dealing with the project description, transportation impacts and mitigations, and drainage. Staff review has been limited due to the proposed project’s consistency with the 1991 Settlement Agreement and the limited discretion available to the City of Palo Alt0 to recommend changes to the proposed project. However, staffhas some concerns about the Draft SEIR, primarily concerning the adequacy and accuracy of the Transportation Section. These concerns should be conveyed to the City of East Palo Alto to assist in its preparation of a complete and accurate Final Supplemental EIR and its review of the merits of the proposed project. Staff recommends the City of Palo Alto convey the following comments about the Draft Supplemental EIR to the City of East Palo Alto, with additional detail to be provided in a letter from the Mayor: Transportation 1. While traffic counts for Palo Alto used in the DSEIR are adequate, some of the counts for East Palo Alto intersections were done in the week after the February flood. Consequently, estimates of existing conditions and project impacts could be understated in the DSEIR. o The methodology employed to assess the levels ofservice at links, ramps and intersections associated with the west side of the University Avenue interchange treats the components as separate systems rather than interconnected, which may lead to conclusions that exigting and future traffic conditions are better than what is and will be experienced in the field. It appears the DSEIR understates the trips generated by the proposed project and overstates the trips generated by existing development. The City of Menlo Park prepared a traffic analysis which details this concern. CMR:230:97 Page 4 of 6 It appears that the DSEIR may understate the proposed project’s parking demand, which has the potential to adversely affect nearby Palo Alto on-street parking. It may be that the proposed project, even with construction of the above-ground parking structure, may not provide adequate parking for the uses contemplated. The City of Menlo Park prepared a traffic analysis which details this concern. 0 The reconfigured University Avenue Interchange results in bicycle circulation patterns that raise concerns about safety. This aspect of the design should be further considered by the applicant, the City of East Palo Alto and Caltrans. Also, some pedestrian improvements in the surrounding area may be needed, given increases in traffic associated with the project. RESOURCE IMPACT Only minor staff resources are involved in the current review of the proposed project and future monitoring of the project’s continued compliance with the Settlement Agreement provisions pertaining to the construction and occupancy phases. POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no outstanding policy implications, as the proposed project has been found consistent with the 1991 Settlement Agreement which governs the City’s discretion in reviewing the current project. TIMELINE Public comments on the adequacy of the Draft Supplemental EIR are due by May 14, 1998. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City of Palo Alto’s action is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, being a response to lead agency City of East Palo Alto’s referral of a Draft Supplemental EIR. ATTACHMENTS A. Summary of Terms of Settlement Agreement B. Project Site Plan (Figure 4 from DSEIR) C. Summary of Significan Environmental Impacts PREPARED BY: Anne Cronin Moore DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ANNE CRONIN MOORE Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR:230:97 Page 5 of 6 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assistant City Manager City of East Palo Alto (Michael D. Bethke, Director of Planning and Public Works) City of Menlo Park (Don de la Pefia, Community Development Director) Crescent Park Neighborhood Association (Catherine Lehrberg) CMR:230:97 Page 6 of 6 Attachm.e.nt A Section ( s ) Page ( SUMMARY OF TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Palo Alto and Crescent Park v. East Palo Alto and DeMonet Industries I.GENERAL LIMITATIONS ON THE PROiTECT No project is to be undertaken except in accord with the Agreement. The project shall conform to other mitigation measures incorporated in the original Conditions of Approval to the extent they remain applicable and are consistent with the Agreement. East Palo Alto may not approve further changes to the project that conflict with the Agreement. II.DEFINITIONS OF USES These should be consulted for purposes of determining (i) what uses are not allowed in the project, as specified in "III-C" below, and (2) what traffic generation ratios should be applied to any category of use in a proposed reallocation of floor space, as specified in "III-B" below. III.USE AND TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS A. Initial allowed configuration: office 460,000 Retail 15,000 Hotel 190,000 665,000 gross sq. ft. Note that the definition of "gross square footage" in this section should be examined to determine what is included and not included in the above figures. B. Permissible reallocations of space. i.Any reallocation must meet the following traffic restrictions. A,D.I,2 3,14 B.l.a 4-5 B.l.b 5-6 Office Buildings - any reallocation can’t exceed the following traffic limits, as calculated in Exhibit 2 for the initial configuration: Total Daily Trips 5,339 PM Peak Trips 819 Hotel Parcel - any substitute use can’t exceed the following traffic limits (which are 110% of the traffic that would be generated by the hotel), as calculated in Exhibit 3: Total Daily Trips 2199 PM Peak Trips 177 2.The method of calculating whether the mix of proposed uses in a reallocation meets the above restrictions. In General: The traffic generation ratios on Exhibit 1 shall be used for reallocation. Government and Medical: 3,000 gross square feet respectively of each of these categories per office building may be~charged at office rate, for a total of 12,000 gross square feet. Restaurants: i) High Quality or High Turnover (Sit Down) may be charged off at the Retail rate - 5,000 on Office Parcels, 8,000 on Hotel Parcels (in event no hotel). 2)Fast Food - charged off at the rate in Exhibit i. 3)One cafeteria will be treated asoffice in the office buildings. Other Uses: The traffic generation ratios for other uses, not set forth on Section(s) Page( B.l.c 6-7 B.l.d 7 B.l.e 7-8 B.l.e.(1) 7 Section(s) Page( Exhibit i, will be determined "by reference to the closest category applicable thereto in the most recently published ITE manual." C. Prohibitions on certain uses Industrial uses are prohibited generally on the project site. Hotel uses are not allowed on the Office Parcels. IV.OTHER STANDARDS AND CONTROLS A. Height Office - 155 feet above 30MSL Hotel - 120 feet above 30 MSL Garage -25.feet above finished floor (which can be 30 MSL) Restrictions on rooftop equipment and antennae. B. Setback South office building 125 feet from center line of Woodland Avenue. C.Barrier - along creek bank. D.Exterior lighting. E.Footprint of~office buildings. 75,000 feet in toto if height 150-155 feet is 80,000 feet in toto if height is 150 feet or below F. Parking garage site. This can be located only in the rear of site, in Exhibit 5 boundaries. G. Construction hours and noise. The agreed hours are 7:30 to 5:30 weekdays~ but except for pile-driving East Palo Alto may grant waivers to B.I.c, d 6-7 B.2.a 8 B.2.b 8-9 B.3.e Ii B.2.c 9 B.3.a 9 B.3.b 9 B.3.c i0 B.3.d i0 B.3.e ii C.l ii-i - 3 - allow for specified longer times and work on weekends. H.Required completion of traffic circulation improvements and TDM. The specified circulation improvements must be completed prior to occupancy. The TDM Progrgm (Exhibit 8)must beimplemented wlthin 45 days of occupancy of the first Office Building by 250 employees. V.STEPS IN EAST PALO ALTO’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT UNDERTHE AGREEMENT A. PUD Permit Amendments. The PUD permit must be amended to incorporate the restrictions in the Settlement Agreement. Any changes in the development approvals must be reflected in the PUD Permit, and be consistent with the agreement. Notice required of hearings, actions, changes in PUD permit - including materials to determine compliance. B. Building Permits. No building permits may be issued unless working drawings show compliance with specifications in PUD permit. The Chief Building Official of Alto has the opportunity to inspect i0 days before issuance of the building permits. C. Construction Verification. DeMonet is required to provide measurements, certified by civil engineer of (i) foundation points prior to pouring of concrete, to ensure Compliance with footprint and set-back restrictions and (2) heights of any buildings when initial framing completed. Section(s) Page( C.2.a, b 12-i~ C.2.c 13 B.l.b 5-6 B.l.c 6-7 F 16-i’~ B.3.f ii F.6 17 ~ Section(s) Page( D. Occupancy Permits. No occupancy permits may be issued for office Buildings until the circulation improvements are completed. E. Lease Provisions. Leases must be restricted to specified uses. Palo Alto will be provided annually with a summary of leased space and uses, but Palo Alto must request this summary. F. Further CEQA Review. Under specified circumstances new CEQA review will be required of a project even though it complies with the agreement - if it has other changes not previously considered in an EIR. VI. EXCEPTIONS TO AGREEMENT’S APPLICATION A.A project not complying with agreement must meet all of following conditions: i.The DeMonet Project is not completed; and DeMonet is no longer the developer. 2.East Palo Alto determines that it is not feasible to proceed with the project under the conditions of the Agreement. 3.A project of a substantially different character is proposed by a different developer. Further conditions on this kind of .project. i.The waivers and releases in the Settlement Agreement are of no effect - i.e., Palo Alto can challenge the project. 2.If any part of the DeMonet project has been built, the remainder shall comply with traffic impact limitations and height limitations. C.2.a 12-i[ B.l.f 8 F.4 D.5 15 D.3 16-i~ 14-i~ - 5 - Attachment B ¯ SURFACEoooooeoooooooo M~xlmum bulidlnO envelope Indlc(~’l;ino posslb[e building locc:tlon. Ac±u~l ho±el will occupy only ~ poP±Ion o~’ ±hls envelope, (specific design no± yet de±ermlned) SITE PLAN FIGURE 4 ATTACHMENT C SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The draft Supplemental EIR for the University Circle Redevelopment Project has found the following impacts to be potentially significant, even after mitigation: Significant Unavoidable Impacts ¯Demolition of Fisher Research Laboratory buildings that are potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. ¯Visual changes and winter morning shading of the adjacent residential uses across Manhattan Avenue. Reduction of the V/C ratio of University Avenue/Woodland Avenue, already operating below LOS D, to increase by 0.05 or more. Addition of traffic to Willow RoadfMiddlefield Road and Willow Road/Durham Street, which are already operating at LOS E or F. Significant impact to the CMP facility ofBayfront Expressway~t_lniversity Avenue. (Only using Santa Clara County CMP criteria; not significant with San Mateo County CMP.) Significant impacts to Willow Road/O’Keefe Street and Willow Road/Chester Street. Significant impact to the northbound segment ofU. S. 101 mainline, north of University Avenue, in the PM peak hour. Significant Unavoidable Cum~!lative Impacts Significant cumulative traffic impacts to signalized intersections in East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, unsignalized intersections in East Palo Alt0 and Menlo Park, and the U. S. 101 mainline. Potentially significant cumulative air quality impacts. Significant cumulative impact to historic structures from Gateway 101 and the University Circle projects.