HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-27 City Council (12)TO:
FROM:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
I 0
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
AGENDA DATE: JULY 27, 1998 CMR:320:98
SUBJECT:CITY OF PALO ALTO PROPOSED COMMENTS ON
WOODLAND CREEK APARTMENTS DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
REPORT IN BRIEF
The purpose of this report is to assess on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (DSEIR) prepared for the Woodland Creek Apartment Complex project in East Palo
Alto. 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 the City of East Palo
Alto by the August 14, 1998 deadline for public comments on the DSEIR.
CMR:320:98 Page 1 of 4
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 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Woodland
Creek Apartments project.
BACKGROUND
In 1991, the City of East Palo Alto certified an EIR and approved a 45-unit townhouse
project located on 3.66 acres between San Francisquito Creek and West Bayshore Road on
the site of Trailer Town and Woodland Trailer Park. The project was never constructed.
WindRiver Investments has now Proposed to the City of East Palo Alto a revised
development for the site which would include 66 units of rental housing. A site plan of the
proposed project is included in this report as Attachment A.
The site was recently graded, resulting in the removal of most of the existing trees on the
site, including several mature trees, and the importation of soil, increasing the elevation of
the site. That work was based on a grading and demolition permit for the site issued by the
City of East Palo Alto on May 29, 1998. A "stop work" order was issued by the City of East
Palo for the grading activity on June 19, 1998 due to unauthorized tree removal on the site
(see Attachment B, June 24, 1998 letter from Michael Bethke, City of East Palo Alto, to June
Fleming). The stop work order was lifted by the City of East Palo Alto on June 22, 1998,
based on the cooperation of the developer with the City of East Palo Alto in addressing the
violations.
The San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office is investigating a possible violation of the
State Fish and Game Code Section 1603, which requires that a Stream Bed Alteration permit
be secured prior to any substantial altering of a stream bed or surrounding area. Such a
permit was not obtained prior to the grading activity. The District Attorney’s Office will
determine a course of action pending the outcome of an ongoing investigation by the
California Department ofFish and Game.
The City of East Palo Alto prepared a DSEIR on the revised project, which was circulated
in May 1998. The City of Palo Alto received copies of the document on June 1, 1998 with
a July 20 deadline for submitting comments. An extension for submittal of comments to
August 14, 1998 has been granted by the City of East Palo Alto.
City of Palo Alto staff have been contacted about the project on several occasions by
residents of the Edgewood Drive neighborhood across the creek. The City Manager and staff
from the Planning Department, Transportation Division, and Public Works Engineering met
With neighbors on the evening of July 9, 1998 to discuss their concerns.
DISCUSSION
Staff has reviewed the DSEIR for adequacy and consistency with the California
CMR:320:98 Page 2 of 4
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachment C isa draft letter to the City of East Palo
Alto documenting numerous specific concerns about the DSEIR. City staff concerns are
primarily related to:
1) The adequacy of the project description,
2)The inability of the EIR authors to.adequately analyze visual, land use compatibility
and biological issues with what may be an inadequate project description,
3)The inadequacies of the current analysis of potential drainage and flooding impacts,
and
4)Questionable conclusions regarding the project’s consistency with the policies of the
City of East Palo Alto General Plan.
¯A major concem of staff is the inadequacy of the DSEIR in evaluating whether the proposed
project flood wall would displace future flood waters from the project site (it was under
water in February, 1998) to residential properties on the Palo Alto side of San Francisquito
Creek. The Santa Clara Valley Water District and Caltrans have similar concerns regarding
the project and the DSEIR analysis of potential project flood related impacts.
Other concems of staff are the visual and land use compatibility impacts which could result
from the project due to its 40-foot height, its minimal setback from the creek, and its lack of
proposed landscape screening between the project and properties on the Palo Alto side of the
creek. Staff has found that project traffic impacts have been adequately addressed in the
DSEIR and has explained this to the Edgewood Drive area residents at the meeting on July 9,
1998.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Minor staff resources are involved in the current review of the proposed project. Additional
minor staff resources will be required to evaluate the responses to comments provided in the
Final SEIR.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed letter commenting on the adequacy of the DSEIR is expressly authorized by
CEQA. There are no other applicable policy implications.
TIMELINE
Public comments on the DSEIR are due by August 14, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City of Palo Alto’s action is not subject to the provisions of the California
CMR:320:98 Page 3 of 4
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachment C is a draft letter to the City of East Palo
Alto documenting numerous specific concerns about the DSEIR. City staff concerns are
primarily related to:
1) The adequacy of the project description,
2)The inabilitY of the EIR authors to. adequately analyze visual, land use compatibility
and biological issues with-ctn inadequate project description,
3)The inadequacies of the current analysis of potential drainage and flooding impacts,
and
4)Questionable conclusions regarding the project’s consistency with the policies of the
City of East Palo Alto General Plan.
A major concern of staff is the inadequacy of the DSEIR in evaluating whether the proposed
project flood wall would displace future flood waters from the project site (it was under
water in February, 1998) to residential properties on the Palo Alto side of San Francisquito
Creek. The Santa Clara Valley Water District and Caltrans have similar concerns regarding
the project and the DSEIR analysis of potential project flood related impacts.
Other concerns of staff are the visual and land use compatibility impacts which could result
from the project due to its 40-foot height, its minimal setback from the creek, and its lack of
proposed landscape screening between the project and properties on the Palo Alto side of the
creek. Staffhas found thatproject traffic impacts have been adequately addressed in the
DSEIR and has explained this to the Edgewood Drive area residents at the meeting on July 9,
1998.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Minor staffresources are involved inthe current review of the proposed project. Additional
minor staff resources will be required to evaluate the responses to comments provided in the
Final SEIR..
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed letter commenting on the adequacy of the DSEIR is expressly authorized by
CEQA. There are no other applicable policy implications.
TIMELINE
Public comments on the DSEIR are due by August 14, 1998.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City of Palo Alto’s action is not subject to the provisions of the Califomia
CMR:320:98 Page 3 of 4
Environmental Quality Act, being a response to lead agency City of East Palo Alto’s referral
of a Draft Supplemental EIR.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Proposed Project Vicinity Map and Site Plan
Attachment B: Letter dated June 24, 1998 from Michael Bethke, City of East Palo Alto, to
June Fleming.
Attachment C: Draft letter commenting on the Draft Supplemental EIR for the proposed
Woodland Creek Apartment Complex
PREPARED BY: Brian Dolan, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ANNE MOORE
Interim Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Janet Levy, Creek Action Committee
Ken Alsman, Project Representative
CMR:320:98 Page 4 of 4
Site
Attachment A
Not To Scale
Figure 2-2
Vicinity Map
2-3
Wallace Roberts and Todd
I
Attachment B ,"
City of East Palo Alto .
Community Development
June Fleming, City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
June 24, 1998
SUBJECT: Woodland Creek Construction Activity
Dear June,
I have finally cornpleted my research and analysis of what has transpired during the past week or so in
response to all the complaints regarding the construction activity occurring at the old "Trailer Town" mobile
home park site.
My research has concluded the following findings:
On May 29, 1998, a set of demolition and grading plans were plan checked and approved by the City’s
Engineering and Construction Services Divisions. Said plans were conditioned with expressed provisions that
the numerous trees along the creek bank were "...not part of this demolition permit."
(Special Note: These plans were also reviewed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and approved with
- the above noted condition - Permit #98123.)
Because of a Court Order by the Municipal Court of San Mateo County, the former Trailer Town mobile
horne park was officially declared vacant on June 10, 1998. The City of East Palo Alto subsequently sent a
letter to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) instructing HCD tt(at the
former Trailer Town site was now under the City’s jurisdictional control.
On June 12, 1998, the Construction Services Division granted a ministerial approval for a grading and
demolition permit ( Permit #4078), based on the expressed conditions of the approved plans of May 29, 1998.
The Planning Division made findings that the scope of this work constituted a Class 4 Categorical Exemption
under Section 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines, whereby "grading on land with a slope of less than 10 percent,
except that grading shall not be exempt in a waterway, in any wetland, in an officially designated scenic
area...’" etc., is declared Categorically Exempt.
On June 15, 1998, demolition ~vork started on the site. The last remaining buildings had been tested and
abated tbr lead and asbestos, and appropriate clearances had already been granted. An approved manifest for
clean imported soil for backfill had been submitted and approved by the Construction Services Division.
2200 University Ave East Palo Alto California 94303 Tel." 650/ 853-3189 Fax: 650/ 853-3179
On June 17, 1998, a few complaints started filtering in to our office, informing my staff that numerous trees
had been removed from the top of the cri~ek bank. After this issue was brought to my attention I personally
inspected the work site on June 18, and indeed noted numerous trees missing along the top of the creek bank
(San Francisquito Creek). Alter conferring with my engineering and construction services staff, I subsequently
directed a "_Stop Work Order" to be issued .to the contractor - W.L. Butler - which went into effect at 2:00
pm on June 19, 1998.
After I consulted with the developer - WindRiver Investments - on July 22, I had put them on notice that.this
behavior was completely unacceptable to my department. I also informed the developer that I would be
Consulting with the City Attorney in order to determine any and all legal remedies that may be at our disposal, ¯
and consider possible penalties.
WindRiver’s initial concession that maybe the contractor went too far in their demolition and grading
activities, and their acknowledgment and willingne.ss to accept possible punitive penalties, gave me enough
comfort to release the "Stop Work Order" on June 22 so that a small amount a grading activity could be
completed.
On June 24, I received permission from the City Attorney to initiate a penalty of up to ten (10) times the cost
of the grading permit, as allowed Under Resolution #1260 of the City’s Municipal Code. But given the fact
that our unwritten policy for first time offenders is only a five (5) times fine, staff has agreed that since the
developer has shown some degree of cooperation, we will probably institute the five times fine in this case.
Since the grading and demolition permit cost was $1,019.00, the five times fine will probably amount to
$5,095.00.
This penalty will also be coupled with a fine for the one documented "heritage" tree that was removed without
a proper tree removal permit (i.e., a Cyprus tree which measured 41 inches in circumference). Section 6420.3
of the City’s Zoning Ordinance requires that all trees with a trunk which.measures more than forty (40) inches
in circumference requires a tree removal permit, at a cost of $85.00. It is anticipated that the fine for this
infraction will be $425.00.
As of today, June 24, 1998, the City has deferred levying these fines until a State Department ofFish & Game
investigation has been completed, under legal advise from Deputy District Attorney Parker Kelly. Staff has
been advised by Mr. Kelly’s office that Section 1603.1 of the Fish & Game Code may offer even stiffer
monetary penalties for the unauthorized removal of trees within an established riparian corridor.
Since I prepared this synopsis of events rather hastily - I’ve postpone nay vacation twice this week trying to
wrap this situation up - there will be perhaps more information I can for~vard to you upon my return next
Tuesday, June 23.
I hope this answers a lot of the questions you have been bombarded with over the past week. Once again, on
behalf of my Department I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you or your staff. But
hopefully you’re now aware that we are not going to allow this problem to go away unpunished.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Bethke, AICP
Director of Planning & Public Works
cc:EPA City Manager
EPA City Attorney
EPA Building Official
EPA City Engineer
District Attorney
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Edgewood Drive Neighborhood Group
WindRiver Investments, LLC
Attachment C
July 27, 1998
Michael Bethke
Director of Planning and Public Works
2200 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, California 94102-3448
Dear Mr. Bethke:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the
Supplemental EIR a~d for the extension,
comments. This letter details the
Draft Supplemental .EIR (
Creek Project Draft
Alto
the adequacy of the
The DSEIR has
Works En
and
with
rel.
Traffic Division, and Public
primarily on the Project
use compatibility~ project visibility
and the evaluation of the project
Alto General Plan policies.
DSEIR
of
us~ the analys
¯ DSEIR scope on page 1-3 should include a list
are still valid. Since both documents are to be
iect, both should be readily available for review.
2.~ject Descripti~Project Description should be revised to address the
~ditions. The description of existing conditions in the Project
on and elsewhere in the DSEIR should reflect the actual existing
on the site as required by CEQA. The Project Description must be
.rewritten to reflect the grading, filling, and vegetation removal that have occurred
since the DSEIR analyseshave been completed.
Michael Bethke
July 27, 1998
Page 2
Co
Project Characteristics. The description of project
should identify the specific differences
original project, including but not limited to
bulk, height, location of buildings, amount o
proposed grading and other improvements
vegetation to be removed. This information :
adequacy of the environmental iml~
(Figure 2-3) should be accompanied by a
relationship of the project improvements
sections provided in the original EIR.
added need to need to provide a
the plans.
in
page 2-7
the
foota
bank,of
to the
The site plan
illustrating the
to those
flans to be
cal relationships on
Project Characteristics.
of the DSEIR refers to
possible, although no
The
with
other
~osed.
al and
characteristics on page 2-13
for as much vegetation as
~n of this proposal is
a landscape plan which
are to remain and how much and where
This information is essential to required
use compatibility effects, consistency
open space along the San Francisquito
stability.
In,As Part of the Project-Land Use Compatibility. The
DSEIR states 2-15 that.project design "ensures" no significant land use
compatibility to residences across San Francisquito Creek but provides no
or substantiationthat this is true. The SEIR must identify what
about the project design achieve no significant impacts to
across the creek before such a conclusion can be reached. The DSEIR
; on page 2-15 that "good neighbor rules" will solve compatibility problems.
What exactly are good neighbor rules mentioned in this section of the DSEIR?
How are they enforced? What evidence is there that they work?
Michael Bethke
July 27, 1998
Page 3
No Landscape Plan.
"heavily landscaped." Presumably this
compatibility and visibility impacts from the
across San Francisquito Creek. Without a
will remain, and what additional vegetation
evaluate the effectiveness of this measure.
the project and the creek may not allow the
the proposed 40-foot high structures.
located? How many will there be? What
characteristics? How will they relate
The DSEIR states on page 2-15
to
Land Use Plans and Policies
will be
land use
:sidences
it is
setback
;caping required to screen
trees and shrubs be
".r growing
to the creek?
Consistency with the
the East Palo Alto Gen,
the entity responsible
we
Sp:d Conservation Element of
City Alto recognizes that it is not
of the City of East Palo Alto.
analysis of the proposed project’s
Inconsistencies with local plans
mvironmental impact requiring mitigation.
On
des:
natural
ten feet from
expand and
on page 3,
that City of East Palo Alto policy requires that
as the-San Francisquito Creek corridor be let~ in
be protected from the adverse effects of
project which proposes four story buildings less than
,fthe creek bank meet this policy? How does the project
the open space resources provided by the creek as concluded
5, in determining project consistency with the City of East Palo Alto
to provide significant amounts of landscaping, the SEIR states that
the project is "expected" to provide adequate amounts of landscaping. It is
impossible to evaluate what constitutes adequate amounts of landscaping without
a project landscape plan. The DSEIR also states that the plan will retain existing
Michael Bethke
July 27, 1998
Page 4
vegetation "as much as possible." How much ve
as possible?" Who decides how much is
provision of a significant amount of new
trees" as promised by the applicant? How c~
will be sufficient?
"as much
to the
The DSEIR states- on page 3.1-15 that the
"woodsy ambiance". What number,
of t.rees would be necessary to create a
On page 3.1-16 the DSEIR
Palo Alto policy that ~equires
"balanced" with the need
project’s not preserving
through adequate
requires
has promised a
and location
cons1: with City of East
ects be
In light of the
the creek resource
does not seem to be achieved.
to relevant regional plans.
respect to the evolving policies of
Plan (CRMP) for the San Francisquito
described in
creative devel
without the
on page 3.1-12 that the project will be in
if it obtains approval from the City of East Palo Alto of
~rmit. The purpose of the Planned Community permit, as
of the City’s Zoning Ordinance is "to facilitate the
of land by allowing certain zoning standards to be modified,
of a variance, where such modification will better promote the
objectives of the City, including the following:
encourage the comprehensive master planning of land development in
order to achieve an integrated and harmonious relationship between all
elements of the project;
Michael Bethke
July 27, 1998
Page 5
To encourage imaginative and innovative
design;
To encourage the creation and
development process; and
To encourage a more desirable living or
The potential environmental impacts of the
Palo Alto from finding the project to be
finding can not be made, the project must
height, andrear setback req
open
of
City of East
purpose. Ifthis
ast Palo Alto’s
4. Drainage and Flooding
Paragraph 1.1: The
What is the expected
more detailed
prop~
existin
site is 3.0 cfs.
This section should include a
site and how it will change as a
proposed net change in site
to proposed conditions?
directly to San Francisquito Creek from two
section of the DSEIR should contain a
,ge system for the new development. Are the
to be utilized or replaced?
DSEIR
West
t FEMA’s projected stream flow for 10-year storm event at
is 2,900 cfs. Correct flow rate at this location is 4,350 cfs (or
~on 1989 FEMA Flood Insurance Study for the City of Palo Alto.
The DSEIR refers to "protective fencing" along the creek to
sediment from entering the creek. "Silt fencing" is a more appropriate
term for this type of installation.
Michael Bethke
July 27, 1998
Page 6
Erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
on Impact Flood-6 for further explanation).
in a
lee comments
Impact Flood-2: The DSEIR states that
Flood Hazard Area on the current FEMA FI~
the site be added to the Special Flood
issued by FEMA in the next few months?
constructed at or above the base flood
Even if site is not to be
consider raising the floor
precautionary measure, due to
FIRM,
Rate Map ~. Will
revised FIRM to be
floors should be
revised FIRM.
should
grade, as a
of the site.
The DSEIR states that the
potential for
adjacent properties?
, one foot to reduce the
have on the drainage from
on ~c and Hydraulic Analyses
the project does have the potential to negatively
creek levels to rise during storm events. The
F of the DSEIR:
The
assess
redone
~c and Hydraulic Analyses do not accurately
of the proposed project given the current conditions in
Creek. It is strongly recommended that the analyses be
updated creek topographic data.
;-section data for the creek upstream of Highway 101 are from the
Flood Insurance Study completed in 1979. Significant erosion and
siltation have occurred in the creek since 1979, resulting in changes to the
creek’s slope and cross-sectional area and a probable reduction in flow
capacity. In particular, there is significant siltation adjacent to the project
.site upstream of and beneath the Highway 101 bridge.
Michael Bethke
July 27, 1998
Page 7
Under the Hydrology Conclusion
100-year design flow (6060 cfs) appears
that leaves the drainage area," since
flooding at the project site even thou
This statement is speculative, since
water that lef~ the creek upstream of t
site flooding occurred due to siltation
study was conducted in 1979.
le
was
the FEMA
of flow
;ed
It is also po~, the
channel since the FEMA
(2)
The author of the Hydrolol "
significant limitations to
hydrology"; "The
and "There are si
area." These
for
5oft cites
not verified the
by BKF";
in the project
of the document as a tool
requirementsof CEQA.
The report increases in upstream water levels"
construction of a flood barrier matching
southwest side of the creek. Table 1 of the report
elevations ofup to 1.6 feet under
to "current" conditions. These increases do not
nature, especially considering the reported
experienced along the southwest side of the creek on
(3)
(4)
The
barri
should investigate the feasibility of alternatives to the flood
the site from flooding without increasing upstream water
Alternatives may include channel widening or setback levees that
the creek’s flow capacity.
Appendix F states that local low points on the southwest bank ofttie creek
should be raised to elevation 18.5 and that the flood barrier should be
extended across the channel adjacent to the West Bayshore Road bridge as
Michael Bethke ’
July 27, 1998
Page 8
(5)
part of the project. Have these proposed"
and mitigation measures been discussed
Clara Valley Water District or the
regarding the feasibility of these "
What impacts will result
completed?_
Prior to project approval, the
all requirements of the Santa
including all comments and
this DSEIR.
not
impacts
the Santa
to comply with
),
in its review of
Impact Flood-5: The
Alteration Permit
the construction of the
En " permit
to obtain a Streambed
fomia ~artment of Fish and Game for
creek. If a US Army Corps of
for af the floodwall, the applicant will
from the Regional Water
SEIR needs to identify which permits are and are not
reql
Im to address the permanent water quality impacts
propos well as the temporary construction impacts. Although
site is less acres and does not require notification to the Regional
Quality I1 Board, it is recommended that the applicant be required to
prepare Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that describes the Best
(BMP’s) that will be incorporated into the project to
potential for adverse water quality impacts, both during construction
,ermanent basis. The provisions of the SWPPP should be incorporated.
construction specifications and drawings to ensure contractor compliance.
The SWPPP should be reviewed and approved by the City of East Palo Alto.
Michael Bethke
July 27, 1998
Page 9
Potential construction-related water quality impacts includ
well as non,storm water discharges resulting
housekeeping practices, and construction
and cleaning. Certain construction
washout, pavement sawcutting, painting)
pollutants if not performed properly.
stabilized construction entrances, catch basin
around material and equipment storage
areas ...........
Potential permanent water quality
introduction of pollutants
and other chemicals from
activities such as
of cleaning products
iment as
storage, site
fuelin
.ge
silt fencing, berming
d concrete washout
and the
pesticides, fertilizers,
dumpster areas and
and tenant use and disposal
parkinl
)ervious
Storm Water
guidance
BMP’s.
that site planning
clustering of buildings, infiltration of
vegetation. Specific BMP’s may include
rin!! Flows to San Francisquito Creek), routing of
vegetated swales, providing a common car
sewer, resident storm water pollution prevention
basin filter inserts, covered dumpster areas, and
a publication produced by the Bay Area
Agencies Association (BASMAA), is an excellent
for selecting permanent storm water pollution prevention
The DSEIR recommends on page 3.4-17 the replacement of mature trees to be lost at a
three to one ratio. The mitigation for the loss ofthe mature oaks (Quercus Agrifolia)
does not specify the size of the replacement trees. These replacement oaks should be
Michael Bethke
July 27, 1998
Page 10
at least 36 inch box size and should create as much total tree
trees subject to removal. Any less replacement
impact.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
regarding this letter, please contact Brian Dolan, S~
have
at 329-21.
as did the
i reduce the
Very truly yours,
Dick Rosenbaum
Mayor
Palo Alto City Council
leming,
J~Alto
Bri