Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-26 City Council (12)City of Palo Alto Maria er’s Repor TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER 8A DEPARTMENT: PLANNIING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:July 26, 1999 CMR:325:99 SUBJECT:RESPONSE TO DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE WOODLAND CREEK APARTMENTS, 1982 WEST BAYSHORE AVENUE, EAST PALO ALTO RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached response letter to the City of East Palo Alto Community Development Director. BACKGROUND The Department of Planning and Community Environment as well as a number of Palo Alto residents have been monitoring the proposed development of the site located at 1982 West Bayshore Avenue in East Palo Alto for a number of years. The proposed project site borders San Francisquito Creek and the Green Gables and Crescent Park neighborhoods in Palo Alto (see attached map). The most recent use of the property was a trailer park that was incrementally abandoned over the past year. The site has been the identified by East Palo Alto as primary candidate site for new in-fill housing under its General Plan, The original EIR for the project site was completed in October 1992 for a 45-unit townhouse project. The most recent project iteration has increased the residential unit count from 45 to 90. The Department of Planning and Community Environment received a Notice of Preparation (NOP) from the City of East Palo Alto indicating that a Supplemental EIR would be prepared to provide Environmental Clearance for the revised project under the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Planning staff drafted and sent a letter responding to East Palo Alto’s NOP on June 3, 1999 (attached). This June 3, 1999 correspondence outlined Palo Alto’s serious concern about the adequacy of preparing a Supplemental EIR for the proposed increased project size. CMR:325 Page 1 of 3 DISCUSSION Despite the City’s objection to the use of a Supplemental EIR for the proposed project, the City of East Palo Alto prepared the Draft Supplemental EIR and forwarded it to the City of Palo Alto for review and comment. It was requested that written comments be forwarded to East Palo Alto by July 30, 1999. Planning staff has drafted a response letter and it is attached. The letter outlines concerns regarding CEQA process and documentation, project- related flooding issues, transportation issues and land use compatibility issues. The City is seriously concerned about the manner in which the City of East Palo Alto is administering the requirements of CEQA and the lack of pertinent and necessary documentation and for the proposed project to be adequately reviewed. RESOURCE IMPACT It is not anticipated that there will be any resource impacts related to the review of this project. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent with existing City policies. TIMELINE The attached response letter must be received by the East Palo Alto Community Development Department by July 30, 1999. It is anticipated that the proposed project will be reviewed by the East Palo Alto Planning Commission in Fall 1999. Planning staff will ensure that project public hearing notices and staff reports are forwarded from the City of East Palo Alto for review. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The response letter is not subject to any environmental review under the provisions of CEQA. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Letter to East Palo Alto Community Development Director, dated June 3, 1999 Draft response letter to East Palo Alto Community Development Director, dated July 22, 1999 Prepared By: Ray Hashimoto, Assistant Planning Official CMR:325 Page 2 of 3 DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: \ G. EDWARD GAWF Director of Planning and Community Environment Monika Hudson, City Manager, City of East Palo Alto John Bassman, Planner, City of East Palo Alto Bill Springer, Santa Clara Valley Water District Jeff Shore, St. Francis Neighborhood Association Kevin Fisher, Duveneck Neighborhood Association Carla Schneiderman, Crescent Park Neighborhood Association Janet Levy, Palo Alto Resident CMR:325 Page 3 of 3 101 PROJECT SITE PROPOSED WOODLAND CREEK APARTMENTS FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP June 3, 1999 Planning Division Jon Bassman, Planner City of East Palo Alto 2200 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Subject:Draft Supplemental EIR for the Woodland Creek Apartments Project 1982 West Bayshore Avenue, East Palo Alto Dear Mr. Bassman: Thank you for forwarding the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study’ for the subject Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR) for the proposed Woodland Creek Apartments development. Given site’s location, abutting a portion of the City ofPalo Aho’s northeastern boundary.’, the project definitely has the potential to affect Palo Alto residents and resources. Moreover, the history, of development proposals at this location and the on-site activity of recent )’ears heighten the City’s concerns. Based on the project description contained in the Initial Study, the subject DSEIR is intended to supplement the Woodland Creek Townhouse Development EIR, certified by the City of East Palo Alto in 1992. According to your referral, the original EIR provided clearance for a 45-unit townhouse project at the 3.66-acre project site. The townhouse project never progressed to the development stage, however. Last ?ear, a DSEtR xvas circulated for a 6d-unit apartment complex at the subject site; this Supplemental EIR was never certified. The current apartment project, described in .,,’our NOP and Initial Study, proposes 90 dwelling units for the same 3.66-acre location. Of primary concern to the City of Palo Alto is the original EIR’s applicability to the current proposal. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15163 states that a supplement to an already certified EIR is appropriate, in lieu of a new EIR document, only where "minor additions or changes would be necessary’ to make the previous EIR adequately" apply to the project in the changed situation." The current Woodland Creek Apartments project proposes twice the number of dwelling units as the original proposal. Accordingly, the proposed residential density’ for the site will increase from just over 12 units!acre to nearly 25 units!acre. By comparison, the density in the neighboring residential areas of Palo Alto is between 6 and 8 units/acre. Also, at the time of the original EIR’s certification, conditions on the project site were apparently much different than at present. In the intervening seven .’,’ears, a mobile home park has 250 Hamilton Avenue EO. Box 10250 Pa!o A!to, CA 94303 050.329.2441 e50.329.2134 fa, Page-2- DSEIRWoodtand Creek Apts. June 3,1999 been vacated of residents and removed from the site; and, most importantly, approximately one year ago, following flooding in the area, significant site-clearing and grading work was undertaken. This site and grading work has the potential to seriously exacerbate the flooding problem in the vicinity of the site, especially if it entailed an altering of the site’s overall elevation. Given the increased project-density and site changes, cited above, and the site’s location adjacent to a riparian corridor and an established residential neighborhood, it is more appropriate that a new EIR be prepared. Additionally, reliance on seven-year old data regarding traffic, noise, biological resources, and other environmental issues would not likely be valid, given changed surrounding conditions. Also, item "XII(a)," on page 12 of the Initial Study checklist for the project states that the project will have "no impact" inducing substantia! population growth in the area. The checklist specifically cites that the development of new.homes is a direct inducement of substantial population growth. \Vhile the development of new homes on the site may not constitute a significant environmental impact, the project cannot, by definition, have "no impact" concerning the inducement of population growth. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Woodland Creek DSEIR. We request that we be forwarded a copy of the DSEIR and any other pertinent documentation regarding this proposal as soon as it is available. Also, I am available should you wish to set up a meeting on the project to further discuss any of the issues raised in this letter. If you have any questions please contact Luke Connolly in the Planning Division at (650)329-2149. Sincerely, 2y~himoto Assistant Planning Official CO:June Fleming, City Manager G. Edward Ga~-f, Director of Planning and Community Environment Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official C:winnt/profiles/eastpalo/woodlandcreekapts.noplerter July 22, 1999 Richard Mao, Interim Director Community Development Department City of East Palo Alto 2200 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Subject:Draft Supplemental EIR for the Woodland Creek Apartments 1982 West Bayshore Road, East Palo Alto Dear Mr. Mao: Thank you for providing the City of Palo Alto the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the proposed Woodland Creek Apartments project. The City has significant concerns regarding this proposed development, several of which were previously raised in our response letter, dated June 3, 1999, to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the DSEIR. As stated in the NOP response letter, the City’s primary concern is the inappropriate use of a Supplemental EIR. The subject DSEIR is intended as a supplement to the Woodland Creek Townhouse Development EIR, certified by the City of East Palo Alto on October 20, 1992. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15163 states that a supplement to an already certified EIR is appropriate only where "minor additions or changes are necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation." While the project’s boundaries are apparently unchanged from those described in the original EIR, the proposal itself constitutes a substantially different project on a site that has been significantly altered. It is our opinion that the City of East Palo Alto should either prepare a new EIR or subst~tntially revise the DSEIR to adequately analyze the proposed development given the substantial changes made to the both the project and its site. The reasons for this are categorized below. Increased Density The original Woodland Creek Townhouse Deve!opment EIR provided environmental clearance for a 45-unit townhouse project. The current project July 22, !999 Woodland Creek Apts. DSEIR Page 2 alters the type of dwelling unit from townhouses to apartments and, more importantly, increases the total number of dwelling units from 45 to 90. This doubling of residence boosts the project’s density to nearly 25 dwellings per acre, approximately four times what is found in the single-family residential neighborhoods adjacent to the project site. Accordingly, increased density means more intensive use by a larger population and buildings with a greater mass scale. Importation of Off-site Fill Materials Of even greater concern, the DSEIR describes the importation of approximately 10,000 to 15,000 cubic yards of fill, grading, and site clearing performed in June 1998 as a "separate project." On page 38 of the DSEIR, the rationale for this conclusion is explained as follows: This SEIR evaluates the impacts of the project upon the existing site conditions, as they exist today [presumably May or June 1999], in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. The CEQA Guidelines (Sec. 15125) are clear in the definition of existing conditions, which is as follows, "the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published .... This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." Given that the subject DSEIR is intended as a supplement to an EIR certified in 1992, it is inconsistent to claim that actions taken on the project site only last year are unrelated to and separate from the current development proposal. The DSEIR even ac ~knowledges that the imported fill is needed to brace flood walls proposed for the north side of San Francisquito Creek, a clear indication that the already imported fill is an essential part of the current project. Moreover, when the site preparation work was undertaken in June 1998, the developer yeas proposing to develop a 66-unit apartment complex for which an earlier DSEIR was prepared. To claim that the already completed site preparation work is distinct from the future construction phase is an attempt to piecemeal the project. This approach is contrary to the intent of CEQA as well as numerous court decisions relevant to the subject. Also, CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378(a)states that a "’Project’ means th~ whole of an action." Therefore, in order to properly evaluate the impacts of the proposal, and truly be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, the DSEIR needs to evaluate site conditions as they existed prior to the importation of off-site fill materials, grading, and site clearing work done in June 1998. To evaluate the site conditions at the time the NOP was published for the subject DSEIR is tantamount to not evaluating the whole project, which means that environmental clearance was never granted for the site preparation work done in June 1998. July 22, 1999 Woodland Creek Apts. DSEIR Page 3 Flooding Issues According to the DSEIR, off-site fill material was imported to the project site in June 1998 to minimize potential flooding impacts. Flooding presumably became an even more serious issue for any development proposed for this location in light of the flooding that occurred throughout the areas adjacent to San Francisquito Creek in February 1998. However, in raising the elevation of the project site by t~vo to three feet via the imported fill, the potential for exacerbating flooding on adjacent sites, especially those located in the City of Palo Alto on the south side of the creek, has been increased. The mitigation described in the DSEIR for this heightened flooding impact is to construct a more substantial flood ",,,:all on the south side of San Francisquito Creek. As the DSEIR acknowledges, though, this mitigation measure is beyond the control of the developer and outside the jurisdiction of the City of East Palo Alto. There is, therefore, no way of ensuring that this mitigation measure will actually occur. As acknowledged in the DSEIR, approval authority for this mitigation rests with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and the SCVWD has not indicated that it is supportive of the proposed measure. The likelihood that the proposed Woodland Creek development will shift flooding problems from the project site to residential neighborhoods in Palo Alto is of great concern to the City, and the DSEIR needs to clearly acknowledge this as a significant environmental impact. It cannot be assumed by the City of East Palo Alto and the developer that this mitigation measure will simply be "worked out" in conjunction with another agency (SCVWD) which is not a party to the project. Transportation Issues While it appears that the traffic/transportation analysis presented in the DSEIR is sufficient, and the project’s trip generation reasonably calculated, there are several textual changes that should be corrected or added to the document. Specifically, on. page 65, a portion of the information regarding the thresholds for significant traffic impacts in the City of Palo Alto is missing. Also, a diagram similar to Figure 14 on page 69 should be incorporated to show project-only traffic. These modifications would enhance the public’s use of the DSEIR and minimize the need to refer to the document’s technical appendices. And, while development of the project will not likely cause a significant impact at the West Bayshore Road/Embarcadero Road intersection, existing traffic at this intersection is already operating at an inefficient level of service (LOS F). The City of Palo Alto may at a much later date provide a roundabout at this intersection as part of its incipient residential traffic-calming project, but in the foreseeable future no improvements July 22, 1999 Woodland Creek Apts. DSEIR ff~ Page 4 are anticipated. It would, therefore, be advisable for the City of East Palo Alto to .... 4:~¢~ include a "mitigation" measure in the prdject that future residents of the apartment ~2 complex be informed of the alternate routes available to.them, specifically that the signalized West Bayshore Road/St. Francis Drive intersection (LOS B) serves as a superior alternative to West Bayshore/Embarcadero. Project Incompatible with Adjacent Riparian Environment and Surrounding Residential Development As presently designed, the developer is proposing to construct three 3-story apartment buildings with podium-style parking in an area predominately developed with single-family detached residences. Elevations in the DSEIR show buildings 46 feet high which dwarf the scale of surrounding residential structures. The DSEIR, however, lacks information pertaining to the design and architectural features of the proposed buildings, and the information that is provided is not very concise (i.e., page 1 of the DSEIR states that the apartments "will have siding that looks like wood"). Additionally, while the document contains valuable information, such as a building "shadow analysis," there is no visual information showing what the project will look like from adjacent residential neighborhoods in Palo Alto. It seems inappropriate for the DSEIR to conclude that the proposed high-density apartment complex will not have visual or aesthetic impacts on these single-family neighborhoods when there is not enough supporting material indicating this in the DSEIR. Also, the design of the project is incompatible with the adjacent San Francisquito Creek corridor. Typically, structures, paved areas, such as parking lots, and formally landscaped areas, are set back the maximum possible distance from a riparian area. A 75- to 100-foot setback from a creek’s top of bank, or the established edge of the riparian corridor, is a commonly used setback distance. As shown on the project site plan in the DSEIR, all proposed buildings are within 23 feet of the creek’s top of bank, with recreational facilities (swimming pool; tot lot) with other paved areas located even closer. This type of site planning indicates both an over-intensification of on-site uses as well as insensitivity to the adjacent rii~arian corridor environment. Additionally, because the potential environmental impacts of the site preparation work performed in June 1998 are not analyzed as part of the current proposal, several statements of fact contained in the current DSEIR are not verifiable. For instance, it is stated on page 50 that "the project’s landscaping plan is intended to be more than adequate compensation for the trees that were removed from the site in June 1998." Since the DSEIR never discusses what was removed in June 1998 (one Coast Live Oak presently exists on the site, might there have been more?), it July 22, 1999 PageW° odl5 and Creek ap ts.D SEIR is not possible to know if the proposed landscaping will adequately com for what has already been removed. The same can be said of riparian flora and fauna habitats that may have existed on the site prior to June 1998. Without knowing the condition of the site prior to the June 1998 site preparation work it is impossible to analyze the whole project’s potential impacts on these resources. Inappropriate Alternative to the Proposed Project Even though the "Reduced Density Alternative" described in the DSEIR proposes fe~ver units (66 apartments in lieu of 90) than the project, it in fact appears to be a totally different type of residential development that is not directly comparable. A reduced project alternative should be of a comparable design to the primary proposal; however, the one described in the DSEIR is of a significantly different configuration that in many respects is actually more intensive than the proposed 90-unit apartment project. For instance, the Reduced Density Alternative should provide a greater setback from the adjacent riparian corridor, it should have less area devoted to structures and paving than the project, not more, and building heights should be lower and more compatible with surrounding neighborhood residences. In short, a reduced-scale alternative needs to be reduced both in terms of density and intensity. The DSEIR needs to be revised to include a viable reduced-scale alternative. Incomplete Information The plans included in the DSEIR omit information crucial to the review of this development proposal. To begin with, the site plan lacks a clear project boundary, which is essential to establish given the site’s proximity to San Francisquito Creek. Has a survey been done to determine the precise locations of property lines along the creek? If so, the DSEIR should state this. Also, the text of the DSEIR references a SCVWD easement abutting the property, but the easement is not shown on the site plan. Since flooding impacts have the potential to be the most controversial aspects of this project, the DSEIR should also include a grading and dr.ainage plan, topographic, and surveyed boundary information. Another area that lacks completeness in the DSEIR relates to construction activities. First, the distance of the closest sensitive receptors (Palo Alto residents across San Francisquito Creek) is not specified. Second, phrases such as, "Construction noise impacts would...be reduced by scheduling noisy outdoor operations for the weekday daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., to avoid the more sensitive evening and early morning hours," are too vague. This reads that the noisiest construction activities would be allowed to occur during a period of 60 hours per week, a significant amount of time for anyone living within the vicinity July 22, 1999 Woodland Creek Apts. DSEIR ~,~%~ Page 6 of the project. Also, key information regarding construction activities is not a~%~" presented. For instance, during what hours would construction activities not be allowed? For how long a duration is it anticipated that construction activities will last? Are the "drilled, cast-in-place straight-shaft friction piers" referenced in the DSEIR analogous to pile driving? The DSEIR needs to clarify these items before it can conclude that construction noise impacts will not be significant. As presented, the City has serious public health and welfare concerns regarding potential construction impacts to Palo Alto residents and property. Conclusion Given the significant amount of interest and concern generated by Palo Alto residents, the ~known controversy surrounding this project, and the potentially serious environmental issues involved, it is imperative that the DSEIR adequately evaluate the project’s potential impacts on surrounding areas. This is especially critical since a portion of the project was already completed over one year ago. In its present form, the document’s key flaw is that it treats the development proposal in a piecemeal manner, minimizing its overall impacts when viewed as a whole. The DSEIR also falls short of providing a total package of information and is, therefore, lacking in its primary function--to serve as an informational document for the public and decision-makers. Following the needed revisions to the DSEIR, the City of Palo Alto requests that a copy of the ne~v document be forwarded to the Planning Division as soon as it is available. Also, as indicated in our response to the NOP, Palo Alto Planning staff is available to discuss this project and would like to meet with you to at your convenience. Sincerely, G,ary Fazzino, Mayor, City of Palo Alto cc:Monika Hudson, City Manager, City of East Palo Alto June Fleming, City Manager, Palo Alto John Bassman, Planner, City of East Palo Alto Janet Levy, Palo Alto Resident Bill Springer, Santa Clara Valley Water District Jeff Shore, St. Francis Neighborhood Association Kevin Fisher, Duveneck Neighborhood Association July 22, 1999 Woodland Creek Apts. DSEtR Page 7 Carla Schneiderman, Crescent Park Neighborhood Association Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official Ray Hashimoto, Assistant Planning Official Luke Connolly, Senior Planner