The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-06-21 City Council (3)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: JUNE 21, 2004 CMR: 311:04 4219 EL CAMINO REAL [99-EIA-9]: RECOMMENDATION TO CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) AND APPROVE THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) PREPARED FOR THE REVISED HYATT RICKEY’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MAY 2004). REPORT IN BRIEF Planning applications for redevelopment of the Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel site were filed with the City in 1999. The initially proposed hotel and residential development underwent extensive environmental review, which included the completion and publication of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in March 2002 and a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which was published in February 2003. Certification of the FEIR has been delayed as a result of an interina moratorium that was imposed in early 2003 to complete the CharlestoniArastradero Con’idor Improvement Plan. This Improvement Plan has been completed and was adopted by the City Council in January 2004. The Hyatt Rickey’s Development Project FEIR is complete for certification. Some revisions to this FEIR have been made to reflect changes that have occurred since document publication in February 2003. The changes include recent revisions to the project (Revised Project, May 2004), which propose a redevelopment of the site with an all-residential project (185 residential units), in lieu of the mixed hotel and residential development. The project description in the FEIR has been amended to reflect this CMR:311:04 Page 1 of 27 revised project. The revised project is currently being reviewed and will be subject to separate, future public hearings. However, at this time, the City Council is being requested to take action to certify the FEIR only, which is for the revised project (May 2004) only. As outlined in this report, staff believes the FEIR adequately assesses the environmental effects of this revised project. It is anticipated that formal applications for ARB review and tentative subdivision map review for the revised project will be submitted at a later time. Prior to the consideration and approval of any such formal applications, it will need to be demonstrated how the FEIR, as certified, adequately addresses the impacts of such applications. If it does not adequately address such impacts, it may need to be supplemented. Only after the approval of the formal applications for ARB review and tentative subdivision map review, will the City file a Notice of Determination. The filing of the Notice of Determination and the posting of such notice starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approvals under CEQA. CMR:311:04 Page 2 of 27 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro~am (MMRP) prepared for the proposed revised Hyatt Rickey’s hotel and residential project. BACKGROUND Overview of Proiect History In 1999, planning applications were filed proposing a redevelopment of the 15.84-acre Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel property located at 4219 E1 Camino Real and Charleston Road. The initial project applications proposed a redevelopment of the site.with a new hotel facility (320 rooms) and multiple-family residential units (302 rental apartments). A brief ctu’onology of project events and related activities that have occurred since the initial application filing is provided as follows: November/December 1999- An Initial Environmental Assessment was completed recommending the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A public scoping meeting was held on November 15, 1999 to solicit comments from the public on the issues to be studied in the EIR. o December 11, 2001- The Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Management and Safety Study is completed. The study was undertaken due to resident concerns about high traffic volumes and speeds along this corridor and the large number of existing and future schools along Charleston and Arastradero Roads. The study recommends designating Charleston Road as a "school commute corridor." o March 6, 2002- The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project is completed and made available for public review. A 45-day public review period is observed (public review and comment period from March 6-April 24, 2002). A public workshop is held on April 4, 2002 to present and summarize the DEIR to the public. April 18, 2002- The Architectural Review Board reviews and provides comments on selected sections of the DEIR. The public provided comments on the DEIR at this meeting. April 24-30, 2002- The Planning and Transportation Commission conducts a public heating on the DEIR. Substantial public comment is provided at this hearing. Following closure of the public hearing, the Commission continued the item to the meeting of April 30, 2003 for Commission discussion and comments on the DEIR. CMR:311:04 Page 3 of 27 o o May 1, 2002- City staff organizes and completes an inventory of 140 written comment letters/e-mails received on the DEIR from the public and agencies. February 2003- The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is completed and published. April 2003- The City adopts an interim ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on the processing/approval of planning applications in the South E1 Camino Real/Charleston Road Corridor area. The temporary moratorium was imposed so that the City could analyze and identify recommendations for traffic related improvements along the Charleston/Arastradero corridor. January 2004- The Charleston!Arastradero completed and adopted by the City Council. moratorium is lifted. Corridor Improvement Plan is Simultaneously, the temporary 10.January - May 2004- Revisions to the Hyatt Rickey’s development project are studied. A revised proposal for redevelopment of the site with an all-residential project was presented to the City for preliminary review in May 2004. Site Information The subject property consists of several contiguous parcels totaling approximately 15.84 acres. The two largest parcels (Parcels 1 and 3) encompass approximately 12.9 acres and are owned by Hyatt Equities LLC (Hyatt). The two smaller parcels (Parcels 5 and 6) are located at the south end of the subject property, together total approximately 2.9 acres, and are owned by Evelyn Petrusich and Thelma Rossovich. However, Hyatt maintains a 99-year lease of these smaller parcels, for which approximately 30-33 years have now run. The property has frontage on three City streets; Charleston Road to the north, Wilkie Way to the east and E1 Camino Real to the west. Vehicular access to the site is presently provided by five to six driveway cuts along the E1 Camino Real frontage and one rear driveway access connecting to Wilkie Way (driveway located on Parcel 6). Two easements are recorded over Parcel 6, which provide Parcels 1 and 3 with access to the existing Wilkie Way driveway. The site is relatively level and is developed with 47 buildings and structures housing a hotel complex (Hyatt Rickey’s). The buildings range in height from one story to six stories. A majority of the existing buildings are one- and two-story structures, which contain hotel guestrooms. The existing complex of buildings includes 344 guestrooms, a restaurant, conference/meeting room facilities and ancillary retail and auto rental uses. CMR:311:04 Page 4 of 27 Comprehensive Plan Desig-nation The Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan has adopted two land use designations for this site. The base designation is Multiple Family Residential, which permits residential uses at a density range of 8 to 40 dwelling units per acre. The plan description of this designation states that, "density should be on the lower end of the scale next to residential areas." In addition, the site is designated with a Commercial Hotel (H) Overlay. This overlay designation permits development of a hotel use in conjunction with the uses permitted under the base multiple-family land use designation. As defined in the Comprehensive Plan, the Hotel Overlay permits a maximum hotel floor area ratio of 1.5 for the portion of a site that is developed for hotel use. The Multiple-Family Residential and Commercial Hotel Overlay designation permits development of the site with both residential and hotel land uses. Zoning A majority of the property is located within the CS-H (Service Commercial, Hotel Combining) District. The base CS District permits hotels, single-family and multiple- family residential uses, restaurants and retail uses. For mixed residential and non- residential development projects and all-residential (exclusively residential use) development projects in the CS District, the following special provisions must be met: The site development provisions of the CS District (PAMC Section 18.45.050) permit a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.4, except that a "mixed residential and non-residential use" is permitted an FAR of up to 1.0 (an FAR of up to 0.6 for residential and an FAR of up to 0.4 for non-residential). However, per Section 18.45.070 (Special Requirements) of the CS District, all other design aspects of a mixed residential and non-residential use development must comply with the regulations of Chapters 18.24 (RM-30 District) and 18.28 (Multiple-Family Residence Design Guidelines). Per Section 18.45.070 (Special Requirements) of the CS District, exclusively residential use must comply with the regulations of Chapters 18.24 (RM-30 District) and 18.28 (Multiple-Family Residence Design Guidelines). The RM-30 District includes regulations such as a building height limit of 35 feet, lot coverage and floor area ratio limits, as well as requirements for usable open space. In addition, the RM-30 District requires that single-family residetnail use comply with the R-1 District site development regulations of Sections 18.12.050 through 18.12.080, which include, among others, a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and a 35% lot coverage limit. The purpose of the H Combining District is to specifically permit hotel de’gelopment to achieve higher FARs (up to 0.6) than the 0.4 limit established by the base CS District CMR:311:04 Page 5 of 27 zoning. A higher FAR can be permitted provided that a Conditional Use Permit and Site and Design Review approvals are secured. Along a majority of the Charleston Road property frontage and along the entire Wilkie Way property frontage, the property is zoned CS-L (Service Commercial, Landscape Combining) District. The "L" Combining District encompasses a band along both street frontages (depths discussed below). The purpose of the "L" Combining District is to provide specific regulations that would ensure the preservation of a buffer or landscaped open space between adjacent residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial uses. The "L" Combining District limits the permitted land uses to landscaping and screening. Uses such as pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular drives, which are developed in conjunction with the uses permitted in the base zoning (CS District), are allowed, provided that a Conditional Use Permit is secured. At present, one vehicular driveway crosses over this "L" Combining District at Wilkie Way (driveway connection over Parcel 6 at Edlee Avenue). In 2000, staff researched the status of this driveway and the history of the "L" Combining District and determined: The "L" Combining District was adopted in 1978 and was established as part of a major revision to the City’s zoning ordinance. The "L" Combining District was initially envisioned to be used as a landscape buffer between the Stanford Research Park and Barron Park, but was also adopted on the subject Hyatt site. On the 1978 zoning map (Ordinance 3066, adopted June 17, 1978), the "L" Combining District extends from the middle of the Charleston Road public right- of-way toward and into the site for a distance of 75 feet (28 feet, as measured from the property line). For the Wilkie Way frontage, this district extends from the middle of the street right-of-way toward and into the site for a distance of 65 feet (35 feet, as measured from the property line). o Prior to 1978, the land area currently covered by the "L" Combin.ing District was zoned O-A (Open Area) District. The O-A District was established in 1955. The purpose of this former district was similar to the "L" Combining District intended "to provide open space, which would se~we as a buffer between industrial and commercial districts, and adjoining residential districts and public streets." The former O-A District required that a Conditional Use Permit be approved to establish a minor local service street. Therefore, if developed as early as 1955, the Wilkie Way driveway would have required a Conditional Use Pe~nit. Based on a review of available maps, permits and aerial photos documented in City address files, the original Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel ~vas built in the early-mid 1950s and occupied Parcels 1 and 3 only. At that time, Parcel 6 was partially developed with a chicken farm and the Wilkie Way driveway provided access to this parcel. The driveway connection was at its current location (1955 aerial CMR:311:04 Page 6 of 27 photo). In the 1970’s, this chicken farm was demolished and replaced with the current hotel conference facilities. There is no documentation in the City files that a Conditional Use Permit or an encroachment permit was approved for this driveway. A Conditional Use Permit was approved by the City in 1956 for the hotel tower addition, but the conditions of approval do not include any reference to or restrictions on the use of the Wilkie Way driveway. It has been concluded that the Wilkie Way driveway existed prior to 1955, thus pre- dating the Conditional Use Permit requirements of the former O-A and present "L" Combining Districts. The driveway, therefore, has ’legal non-conforming’ status. This means that the property owners may continue to use it in its existing configuration/width, but that any physical changes or improvements in the driveway would require a Conditional Use Permit. Initial 1999 Hotel and Residential Project As noted above, planning applications for the Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project were filed in 1999. A complete description of this project is summarized in FEIR Volume 1 (DEIR). While this project description has changed recently, since initial filing of the planning applications, this description was used as the basis for the assessment of impacts in the FEIR and is briefly summarized as follows: General Overview. The project proposed the redevelopment of the site with a new hotel complex (320 guestrooms, approximately 272,500 square feet) and 302 new multiple-family residential units. The existing hotel complex facilities would have been demolished and the property would have been cleared. The two proposed land use components were desig-ned as one project, with the intent that the two uses would share site access, driveways and vehicular circulation, common recreational facilities and grounds, as well as some of the proposed on-site surface parking. o Hotel Component. The 320-room hotel component of the project was sited on the western portion of the site and would have included conference and meeting facilities, a restaurant and other ancillary uses. The facilities would have been housed in two hotel structures oriented toward E1 Camino Real and Charleston Road. The larger of the taro structures included a sub-surface parking structure. o Residential Component. The 302 multiple-family residential units (three residential unit types ) would have been housed in eight buildings, which was sited on the eastern portion of the subject property, with most buildings facing Charleston Road and Wilkie Way. A one-story, 3,500 square-foot recreation building would have been located between the residential component and the northern wing of the main hotel building. The site layout included both surface CMR:311:04 Page 7 of 27 parking and sub-surface parking structures. A portion of the surface parking would have been shared with the hotel use component. Three sub-surface parking garages were proposed below the eight residential buildings (one level below wade). The residential units were proposed to be leased/rented. However, it was also the intent of the project sponsor to ultimately sell the units as condominiums. The project sponsor has indicated that a Tentative Map application would be filed during the review process for this project. City approval and recordation of a subdivision map is still required to sell the individual units as condominiums in the future. The initial project description said that fifteen percent (15%) of the units (45 units) would be reserved for rental to moderate- and low-income households, which is consistent with the City BMR requirements adopted at the time of application filing. Planning Applications. The planning applications that were filed in 1999 include: ¯ Site and Design Review. In the CS District, projects proposing a mix of residential and non-residential land uses are subject to Site and Design Review approval. Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit is required for three requests: (a) The development of two vehicular driveways within the "L" Combining District along the Charleston Road frontage; (b) a hotel floor area ratio (FAR) in excess of the CS District 0.4 FAR limit for Parcels 1 and 3; and (c) approval of a surface parking lot as a "principal" land use on Parcel 5. A request for reduction in the required off-street parking (PAMC Section 18.83.120(c)). A 12% reduction in the parking requirement was proposed based on shared use of the surface parking for the two land uses. Revised Project- May 2004 In May 2004, the project sponsor filed revisions to the project described above .and assessed in the FEIR. The revised project now proposes an all-residential development of the 15.84-acre site, with no hotel land use component. The revised project presents a similar land use concept as Alternative 18.8, described and analyzed in Section 18 of this Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Additionally, the revised project presents site-planning features that are similar to the initially proposed project and FEIR Alternatives 18.2, 18.3 and 18.4. However, the revised all-residential project proposes a development that is substantially lower in scale, size and density than the initial project CMR:311:04 Page 8 of 27 and these FEIR alternatives. In part, the project revisions were filed to address and mitigate the environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures summarized in the FEIR. The revised project proposes a redevelopment of the site with 185 for-sale residential units, which would result in an overall gross density of 11.7 dwelling units per acre. The revised site plan includes the following features: Some of the residential units are designed to front and orient toward E1 Camino Real, Charleston Road and Wilkie Way. These units would be sited to meet setback requirements and would respect the existing landscape buffer ("L" Combining District) along the Charleston Road and Wilkie Way frontages. The majority of the residential units are oriented inward to the project site and are clustered around courts. Building-to-site-area coverage is estimated at 26%. The residential project would be accessed from E1 Camino Real (one main driveway) and Wilkie Way (existing driveway). The E1 Camino Real driveway would serve as the main, primary access to the development. No physical changes to the existing Wilkie Way driveway are proposed. Unlike the initial project, no access to the project site is proposed from Charleston Road. Internal site circulation is essentially provided by a private loop road, which would provide direct access to units or access to private auto courts or driveways. Uncovered guest parking is proposed throughout the project site to meet minimum off-street parking requirements. With regard to the Wilkie Way access, it should be noted that staff will be recommending that this driveway be limited to emergency vehicle access only. This issue will be addressed when the approvals for the revised project are considered. The revised site plan is designed to include large expanses of common open space and landscaped grounds (32% of the site coverage). This comrnon open space has been’ arranged to preserve many of the "regulated trees" (which include protected trees) that are found on the site. Floor area ratio is estimated at 0.75, which includes the garages proposed for each residential unit. As this revised project proposes an all-residential development within the CS (Service Commercial) District, it is required to comply with the standards of the RM-30 (Multiple-Family Residential) District and the City’s Multiple-Family Residence District Guidelines (PAMC Chapter 18.28). The revised project is designed to comply with the spatial standards of the RM-30 District, including daylight plane and special setback requirements. However, the RM-30 District requires that detached single-family residential homes comply with the R-1 District site development regulations (PAMC Chapter 18.12). CMR:311:04 Page 9 of 27 The proposed residential unit types include: Fifteen two-story, detached single-family homes sited along the Wilkie Way frontage. Ninety-five attached row homes and 75 attached townhomes. The row homes are designed to be 2100 square feet in size, while the attached townhomes would be 1700 square feet. These units would range in height from two to three stories, with no structure exceeding 35 feet. The two-story structures are sited along the project edges fronting Charleston Road and E1 Camino Real. The taller, three-story buildings are sited within the project site, where they are less visible from off-site. ¯Each residential unit is designed to include an attached two-car garage. Unlike the initial mixed hotel/residential project, no sub-surface parking garages are proposed. ¯Each residential unit is designed to include a fenced, private yard/patio area. The revised project proposes that 20% of the units (37 townhomes) be reserved for sale as below-market-rate (BMR) units. This proposal is intended to comply with the City’s recently adopted Housing Element policy, which requires a 20% ~MR housing component for development projects on sites of five acres or more. To date, the revised project has been filed for CEQA review only. The revised project will require Major Architectural Review, subject to the provisions of PAMC Chapter 16.48. The revised project will require a redesi~o-n so that the single-family lots facing Wilkie Way meet size and dimensional requirements for an R-1 District. Section 18.24.070 of the PAMC requires single-family houses on multi-family sites to be developed using single-family standards of the R-1 District (PAMC Sections 18.12.050 thi’ough 080). As this revised project does not propose a mix of hotel and residential land uses, Site and Design Review approval is not required. Additionally, Conditional Use Permit approval would not be required for this revised project in that: !) no new access driveways would be developed over the "L" Combining District fronting Charleston Road; 2) no hotel land use is proposed that would necessitate a request for additional building floor area ratio; and 3), no physical changes or improvements are proposed to the Wilkie Way driveway that would necessitate approval of this permit. A conceptual plan has been submitted and was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) at a study session on June 3, 2004. The formal ARB is expected to be scheduled shortly after a formal application is filed. The revised project will also require tentative subdivision 1Tlap review. ENWIRONMENTAL REVIEW Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) CMR:311:04 Page 10 of 27 A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was completed and distributed for public review on March 6, 2002. Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, a minimum 45-day public review period was required, with the comment period closing on April 24, 2002 (at closure of Commission public hearing on DEIR). A summary of the DEIR format, content and the major, significant environmental and policy issues addressed in the DEIR is provided as follows: Format and Content The DEIR consists of one volume (Volume 1) containing 21 chapters and an appendix. Separate from and on file with the City are a number of supplemental documents and studies that were commissioned by the project sponsor and referenced in the DEIR. Among these supplemental documents are a transportation impact analysis (TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2000) and a tree survey (Mayne Tree Expert Company, 1998.) The DEIR also contains City documents researched and gathered on: a) the dete~Tnination of the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the subject property; b) the CS District provisions for mixed residential and non-residential uses; c) the history and background on the Wilkie Way driveway access; and d) research on and study of mixed use. Project Effects Initially Determined To Be Insignificant During the "initial Notice of Preparation (NOP) and public scoping process, it was determined that the project would not result in a number of environmental impacts or effects in certain resource areas. As explained on page 19-6 of the DEIR, project effects that were initially found to be insignificant are summarized in the Initial Study checklist, which is provided in Appendix 22.1 of the DEIR. As it was initially determined that these areas would not be subject to impacts, the DEIR does not provide any further analysis or study in the following areas: 1) agTicultural resources, loss of prime agricultural land or area zoned for agricultural use; 2) riparian resources; 3) landslides or areas of slope instability; 4) depletion of groundwater supplies; and 5) mineral resources. Project Effects Determined To Be Significant The DEIR identifies !2 categories of study of potential environmental impacts. major categories that were studied are listed and summarized below. The Land Use Land use issues and impacts are addressed in Chapter 5 of the DEIR. Section 5 includes a list of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to land use, which include policies from other elements of the plan. In addition, this section addresses basic zoning provisions that are pertinent to the project and site, and prqvides a list of all pending and approved development projects in the area for the purpose of assessing cumulative impacts. The DEIR concludes that the project would result in several significant land use impacts, which can be reduced with the implementation of mitigation. Recommended CMR:311:04 Page 11 of 27 mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. Potentially significant land use impacts are summarized as follows: Impact 5-1 (Conflict with Height Regulations in CS District). The initial project would have conflicted with the 35-foot height limitation of the CS District for mixed residential and non-residential use. The CS District requires that mixed residential and non-residential use projects comply With the RM-30 District standards, except for allowable floor area ratio. The RM-30 District height limit is 35 feet. The mitigation measure recommended that: a) the building height be reduced to 35 feet or less; or b) that a variance request be filed for approval of the additional building height; or c) that the applicant apply for a rezoning of the property to PC District. NOTE: The revised project (May 2004) are designed to comply with the 35-foot height limit. Therefore, it would implement this mitigation measure and reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impact 5-2 (Land Use Compatibility Impacts). The initial project would have resulted in residential densities averaging 19 dwelling units per acre, significantly higher than the density in the surrounding residential neighborhood. Secondly, the project would have conflicted with Policies LU-6 and LU-35, which require that scale and density between new and existing residential development gradually transition and that building heights in the South E1 Camino area provide a mix of one-, two- and three-stories. The recommended mitigation ~vas to redesign the project to improve scale transition along the edges of the project where it abuts lower density residential development. NOTE: The revised project (May 2004) would result in an all-residential development of the site at an overall density of 11.9 dwelling units per acre. In addition, this revised project has been designed to propose an even lower density transition along Charleston Road and Wilkie Way edges of the project, although as previously stated, this still needs to be revised. Buildings on the remainder of the site are designed to be two and three stories in height. Therefore, it would implement this mitigation measure and reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. ~testtTetic Factors Visual and aesthetic impacts are addressed in Chapter 7 of the DEIR. As discussed in Chapter 7, the subject property consists of 15.84 acres of level land that is developed and contains mature tree cover. Views of the site and existing improvements from Charleston Road and Wilkie Way are partially screened and buffered by the landscape setback (L Combining District) and an eight-foot-high wooden fence. The initial project would have resulted in the development of new buildings, situated behind the L Combining District landscape setback. Five (5) computer-generated visual simulations of the project site were prepared and used in the DEIR to assess visual and aesthetic impacts. The five viewpoints were selected during the EIR scoping process. CMR:311:04 Page 12 of 27 It was concluded that the initial project would have resulted in several visual and aesthetic impacts, which would be significant but could be reduced with the implementation of mitigation. Recommended mitigation measures would have reduced these impacts to less-than-significant levels. These potentially significant visual and aesthetic impacts are summarized as follows: Impact 7-1 (General Visual Compatibility Impact). The initial project would have substantially increased the intensity, mass and scale of development on the project site. The initial project proposed building footprints that are substantially larger than the existing single-family homes on the opposite sites of Charleston Road and Wilkie Way. The recommended mitigation was to step-down the building heights along the edges of the project, where the project abuts existing residential development. NOTE: The revised project (May 2004) is. designed to comply with the 35-foot height limit. In addition, this revised project has been designed to propose a lower density transition along Charleston Road and Wilkie Way edges of the project. As noted, redesign of the single-family lots will be required to meet R-1 standards. This redesign would implement this mitigation measure and reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Transportation and Parking Transportation and parking impacts are addressed in Chapter 8 of the DEIR. The DEIR presents existing level of service conditions at local and critical intersections in the area, as well as those intersections that are fairly remote to the site, but are subject to analysis based on re~onal traffic impacts and considerations (Santa Clara County Congestion Management Pro~am). The DEIR also factors in the traffic that is currently being generated by the existing hotel, as well as observations of current hotel parking. The DEIR concludes that the initial project would have resulted in a number of significant traffic and circulation impacts. In fact, some of the recommended mitigation measures had the potential to result in secondary significant impacts, which were also analyzed. The list of potential impacts and recommended mitigation is provided as follows: Impact 8-1 (Impacts to Charleston Road!Alma Street Intersection). The estimated traffic from the initial project was expected to increase average, critical delay at the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection by more than four seconds. Recommended Mitigation 8-1 provided four options to reduce this impact to less- than-significant levels. These mitigation options included: a) providing an exclusive right-turn lane on the eastbound Charleston Road approach to Alma Street within the existing, available, curb-to-curb width of Charleston Road; b) providing an exclusive right-turn lane by widening the curb-to-curb width of Charleston Road by 10 feet; c) providing a second left-turn lane on the southbound Alma Street approach to the intersection, which would reduce AM peak hour CMR:311:04 Page 13 of 27 impacts only; and d) either reducing the size of the residential portion of the project by 40% (from 302 units to 181 units), or reducing the size of the project by 20% (from 302 units to 242 units) and redesigning the project so that all project access restricted to E1 Camino Real. NOTE: The revised project (May 2004) proposes an all-residential development of the site with 185 residential units with no site access from Charleston Road. Traffic impacts at the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection would be reduced to a level so that the right-turn lane would not be warranted. Therefore, it would implement this mitigation measure and reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Secondary Impact 8-1A (Impacts from Mitigation 8-1). The first option under Mitigation 8-1 recommended installing an exclusive right-turn lane on the Charleston Road eastbound approach to Alma Street, within the existing curb-to- curb street width. In order to accommodate this turn lane within the available curb-to-curb width, the existing bicycle lane would have to be removed with bicycle riders directed onto the sidewalks. Removal of the bicycle lane would have been in conflict with Comprehensive Plan Policy T-27. NOTE: As noted above, the revised project (May 2004) would reduce impacts to a level so that the right-turn lane would not be warranted. Therefore, this mitigation measure would not be required for approval of the revised project. Secondary Impact 8-1B (Impacts from Mitigation 8-1). Similar to Impact 8-1A, Impact 8-1B would have resulted from widening the street approach to accommodate the right-turn lane and replacing the existing bicycle lane by widening the street by 10 feet. This improvement required the purchase of additional right-of-way from homeowners on north and south sides of Charleston Road and would have required moving the railroad crossing gates and signals. NOTE: As noted above, the revised project (May 2004) would reduce impacts to a level so that the right-turn lane would not be warranted. Therefore, this mitigation measure would not be required for approval of the revised project. Impact 8-2 (Safety Impacts at Charleston RoadiWilkie Way intersection). Traffic from the initial project would have caused an increase in left turn moves from westbound Charleston Road to southbound Wilkie Way, resulting in increased, unsafe maneuvers, causing a significant impact during the AM and PM peak hours. Recommended mitigation (Mitigation 8-2) would have required a split- phase signalization for eastbound and westbound Charleston Road intersection approaches, which would have reduced potential safety impacts to less-than- significant levels. NOTE: This mitigation measure would still be required for the revised project (May 2004), as the existing Wilkie Way driveway would continue to provide access to the site. In the event this driveway is limited to emergency vehicle access only, this measure would not be required. CMR:311:04 Page 14 of 27 Impact 8-3 (Inbound Safety Impacts at Charleston Road Main Entrance). Inbound left turn moves from westbound Charleston Road into the main driveway entrance would have resulted in unsafe maneuvers by westbound drivers, causing a significant impact during the AM and PM peak hours. Recommended mitigation (Mitigation 8-3) would have required the installation of a left-turn deceleration lane on Charleston Road, east of the driveway approach. NOTE: The revised project (May 2004) proposes an all-residential development of the site with 185 residential units with no site access from Charleston Road. Therefore, this impact would be eliminated and the mitigation would not be necessary. It should be noted that the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan (January 2004) recommends a center tree-planting median along this segrnent of Charleston Road, which would be in conflict with recommended Mitigation 8-3. Elimination of the project .driveway access along Charleston Road would be consistent with the Charleston!Arastradero Colridor Improvement Plan. Impact 8-4 (Outbound Safety Impacts at Charleston Road Main Entrance). Outbound left-turn moves from the Charleston Road main access driveway to westbound Charleston Road would have experienced extended delays during the AM and PM peak hours. Mitigation 8-4 recommended a raised median along the centerline of Charleston Road to prohibit left-turns. NOTE: Regarding the revised project (May 2004), see the response to Impact 8-3. This revised project proposes no access from Charleston Road. Secondary hnpact 8-4A (Impacts from Mitigation 8-4). The installation of a raised median that would prohibit left turns from the Charleston Road main access driveway would have caused a diversion of traffic to the Wilkie Way Drive, resulting in a noticeable change in character of Wilkie Way. NOTE: Regarding the revised project (May 2004), see the response to Impact 8-3. This revised project proposes no access from Charleston Road. Additionally, the amount of traffic from the revised project that is projected to use the Wilkie Way driveway would be well below the TIRE analysis threshold for a significant impact on Wilkie Way. In the event this driveway is limited to emergency vehicle access only, this secondary impact would be eliminated. Impact 8-5 (hnpacts at Westerly Charleston Road Driveway). Any significant increase in the number of left turns inbound and outbound from the initial project’s westerly Charleston Road driveway would have resulted in safety impacts similar to Impact 8-3 and 8-4 (main driveway). Recommended mitigation (Mitigation 8-5) required a prohibition on left turns and/or designing the on-site circulation so that project traffic is not diverted to this driveway. NOTE: CMR:311:04 Page 15 of 27 Regarding the revised project (May 2004), see the response to Impact 8-3. This revised project proposes no access from Charleston Road. Impact 8-7 (Inadequate Hotel Parking. Supply). The amount of hotel parking proposed with the initial project was not adequate to accommodate eight to ten medium-sized special events per year. Mitigation 8-7 recommended that an on- going parking management pro~am be developed, which monitored hotel parking for the first three (3) years following hotel occupancy. This measure required that, if parking proved to be inadequate, then additional on-site parking was to be provided. The contingency provision for additional on-site parking had site plan design implications. NOTE: As noted above, the revised project (May 2004) would result in an all-residential development of the site. Therefore, this impact would be eliminated and the mitigation would not be necessary. Impact 8-8 (Bicycle Safety Impacts at Westbound and Northbound Approaches to the E1 Camino Real/Charleston Road Intersections). The initial project generated additional bicycle trips on the westbound Charleston Road approach to E1 Camino Real, which would have contributed to additional bicycle safety deficiencies at this intersection. Recommended mitigation (Mitigation 8-8) would have required that additional public right-of-way be dedicated along the Charleston Road frontage so that a continuous five-foot wide bicycle lane-could be accommodated on the south side of the street. NOTE: This mitigation measure would still be required for the revised project (May 2004). The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan recommends the elimination of the "pork chop" island at the Charleston Road/El Camino Real intersection and the improvement of bicycle lanes along Charleston Road. Public Sela, ices a~Td Utilities Public service and utility impacts are addressed in Chapter 9 of the DEIR. The DEIR analyzed cunent utilities and project impacts to sanitary sewer service, water service, solid waste disposal, as well as electricity and natural gas. The section also analyzed cun’ent police and fire services and project impacts to staffing, response time (during non-peak and peak traffic hours) and long-term needs. Potential park and recreation and childcare impacts had also been assessed. Mitigation measures were recommended for each significant public selwice and utilities impact that has been identified. In some cases, mitigation included a recommendation for improvement to or up~ading of existing facilities, or the payment of an impact fee. NOTE: The revised project (May 2004) would not result in any significant changes to the impacts that have been identified or the mitigation measures that were recommended. Therefore, these mitigation measures would still be required. CMR:~ 11.04 Page 16 of 77 Noise Noise impacts are addressed in Chapter 10 of the DEIR. The subject property fronts on El Camino Real, a major arterial, and Charleston Road, a residential arterial. Both streets experience significant traffic with recorded noise levels ranging from 50 dBA (decibels) in the middle of the night on Charleston Road to 67-69 dBA during peak traffic periods on E1 Camino Real. Wilkie Way, a local street, experiences noise levels ranging from 37 dBA in the middle of the night to a high of 62 dBA during peak traffic periods. The DEIR concluded that the initial project would not result in any significant, unavoidable noise impacts that cannot be mitigated. However, significant noise impacts would have been realized, which require the implementation of mitigation. This section includes the following impact: Impact 10-1 (Project Compatibility with Existing Noise Environment). Both the hotel rooms and residential units proposed with the initial project would have been exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding the 60 dBA noise/land use compatibility standard. Recommended mitigation (Mitigation 10-1) required that the project be designed to incorporate noise insulation measures to ensure that the resulting interior noise levels are 45 dBA or less. NOTE: The revised project (May 2004) would not result in any sig-nificant changes to this impact or this mitigation measure. The mitigation measure would still be required to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. It should be noted that an acoustical consultant has reviewed the recent project revisions, confirming that Mitigation 10-1 is appropriate for the residential development proposed along the E1 Camino Real frontage. Health and Safety (Hazardous Materials) Health and safety impacts are addressed in Chapter 13 of the DEIR. A Phase I Environmental Assessment (ESA) of the project site was prepared in 1992. This ESA disclosed that a gasoline/service station previously occupied the northwest comer of the site. Soil samples detected elevated concentrations of gasoline hydrocarbons at the depth of groundwater. Additional research, clean-up of the hydrocarbons and on-going monitoring was conducted between 1992 and 1998, The 1998 monitoring report disclosed that hydrocarbon pollutants have declined, and that the property owner had requested closure. The Santa Clara Valley Water District serves as the oversight agency, which has the authority to grant closure or approval. The DEIR also identifies potentially significant impacts associated with exposure to asbestos and lead-based paint during demolition. The DEIR concluded that the initial project would have resulted in three potentially significant health and safety impacts, which require mitigation. NOTE: The revised project (May 2004) would not result in the development of a sub-surface parking, as proposed with the initial project. Nonetheless, the impact associated with soil movement CMR:311:04 Page 17 of 27 at the northwest corner of the site remains potentially sig-nificant and mitigation would still be required. Furthermore, as the revised project (May 2004) would still result in the demolition of existing buildings and improvements exposure to asbestos and lead-based paint would still be potentially significant and require mitigation. Drainage and Water Quality Drainage, hydrology and water quality impacts are addressed in Chapter 14 of the DEIR. As noted above, the site is relatively tevel. While the project site is not within the federally designated flood hazard zone (FEMA), it is located in and drains to an area that has documented flooding problems. A City-maintained storm drain line, designated System ZB in the City’s Storm DrainageMaster Plan, serves the site. This system includes 12-inch diameter pipes along Charleston Road and along a portion of Wilkie Way. Approximately 77% of the subject property is currently covered in impervious surface material (buildings, pavement and concrete). It was estimated that the amount of impervious surface coverage would have decreased with the initial project (by 12,000 square feet), which would typically decrease the storm water runoff. Nonetheless, the DEIR identified Impact 14-1 concludes that, although the amount of project runoff is expected to decrease from the existing runoff conditions, the proposed drainage facilities and the increased velocity of runoff could alter drainage patterns on adjacent properties or exceed the capacity of existing downstream facilities. This impact could be reduced by introducing on-site detention, increasing on-site infiltration, or re-routing runoff. Recommended mitigation (Mitigation 14-1) would have required the preparation of a hydrologic analysis to ensure that the existing rate and volume of runoff from the site is not exceeded with the project. This analysis would have required the implementation of some or all of the above measures. NOTE: The revised project (May 2004) would result in a similar amount of or less impervious surface coverage than the initial project. However, this mitigation measure would still be required. Biological Resources Biotic resources are addressed in Chapter 15 of the DEIR. A biological assessment of the site was conducted to determine the extent of wildlife use and potential presence of special-status plant and animal species. While wildlife was observed on the site (birds and squirrels), no special-status or sensitive species known to occur in areas of Palo Alto were observed on the site. An inventory and assessment of the existing, si~fificant trees found on the site was completed. Approximately 360 mature native and non-native trees were found on the site. Of this total, 21 are oak trees (Coast live oak and Valley oak) and three are Coast Redwoods, which are protected trees under the provisions of Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The site also contains many "specimen" trees, which are primarily large, non-native trees (such as Deodor Cedars and elms), which are important in providing the landscape buffer around CMR:311:04 Page 18 of 27 the site .and are a part of the landscaped character of site and the City’s "urban forest." The EIR biologist and the Planning Division Managing Arborist reviewed the tree inventory and assessment. The report from the Planning Division Managing Arborist is provided as an attachment to Exhibit A of Attachment 1 of this report (Memorandum from Dave Dockter, dated September 9, 2002). The following biotic resource impacts were identified: Impact 15-1 (Project Tree Removal Impacts). The project would have resulted in the removal of up to 170 existing trees. Mitigation 15-1 recommended that: a) the site plan be revised to protect and preserve existing "regulated" trees and tree stands recommended by the Planning Division Managing Arborist, and b) tree replacement for trees to be removed. Implementation of this measure would have reduced tree removal impacts to less-than-significant levels. NOTE: The revised project (May 2004) proposes to preserve many but not all of the "regulated trees" recommended for protection by the Planning Division Managing Arborist. Therefore, further revisions to the revised project would be required to preserve al__!l regulated trees and to reduce this impact to a less-than significant level. Impact 15-2 (Project Impacts on Protected Trees). The project would have resulted in the removal of 10 Coast live oak, Valley oak and Coast redwood trees, which are protected trees. As a retention of these trees would not result in a reduction of permissible building area by more than 25 percent (of the total site area), Mitigation 15-2 recommended that these trees be protected and that the site plan be revised so that buildings avoid tree removal. Implementation of this measure would, have reduced protected tree removal impacts to less-than- significant levels. NOTE: The recent revisions to the project (Revised Project, 2004) include the preservation of the ~protected trees" recommended for protection by the Planning Division Managing Arborist. Unavoidable Sig~ificant Adverse Effects CEQA requires that the DEIR identify and discuss significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. The DEIR concluded that the initial project would have resulted in three significant, unavoidable, secondary traffic and circulation impacts, which are impacts that would result from proposed mitigation alternatives. These secondary impacts are discussed above (under Transportation and Circulation) and are identified as follows: Secondary Impact 8-1A. Mitigation recommended for Impact 8-1 included the provision for an exclusive right-turn lane on the Charleston Road eastbound approach to Alma Street. In order to accommodate this turn lane within the available curb-to- curb width, the existing bicycle lane would have to be removed with bicycle riders CMR:311:04 Page 19 of 27 directed onto the sidewalks. Removal of the bicycle lane would have been in conflict with Comprehensive Plan Policy T-27. Secondary Impact 8-lB. Similar to Impact 8-1A, Impact 8-1B would have resulted from widening the street approach to accommodate the right-turn lane and replacing the existing bicycle lane. This improvement would have required the purchase of additional right-of-way from homeowners on north and south sides of Charleston Road and would require moving the railroad crossing gates and signals. Secondary Impact 8~4A. Mitigation recommended for Impact 8-4 included the provision for a raised median along Charleston Road, opposite the project driveway where most inbound left-turns and some outbound left turns would be diverted from Charleston Road to Wilkie Way. This diversion of traffic would have resulted in a noticeable effect on the residential environment along Wilkie Way. Given that significant, unavoidable impacts have been identified, approval of the initial hotel and residential project would have required that the City Council adopt °’Findings of Overriding Consideration" if the approval did not involve a reduction of residential units or changes in site access such that the significant secondary impacts would be eliminated. The City would have been required to balance the benefits of the project against these impacts and approved the project only if it is determined that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable impacts. The revised project (May 2004) would result in far less traffic impact to this intersection, and would fall below the threshold for warranting a right-turn lane. Therefore, should the City approve the revised project, there would be no unavoidable, secondfiry impacts, which would require the adoption of "Findings of Overriding Consideration". Alternatives Per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the DEIR is required to review alternatives to the proposed project. Project alternatives were presented and analyzed in Chapter 18 of the DEIR. A total of nine project aIternatives were prepared (Alternatives 18.1 through 18.9). A tenth alternative (Alternative 18.10) assessed the initial project with five site access options. Some of these alternatives are required by CEQA; however, a majority of the alternatives were formulated based on individual requests and comments submitted during the Notice of Preparation!EIR scoping process. In addition, three of the alternatives (Alternatives 18.2 and 18.3, prepared by Van Meter, Williams and Pollack, the City’s urban design consultants and Alternative 18.4, prepared by the project architects) were prepared as a result of meetings and workshops held in mid-late 2000 with City staff, the project sponsor and neighborhood representatives. The purpose of this exercise was to reach a consensus among the City staff, project sponsor and neighbors on a project alternative agreeable to the goals and objectives of all parties. While no agreement was reached at that time, these three alternatives were completed and assessed in the DEIR. CMR:311:04 Page 20 of 27 The following is a brief summary of the project alternatives that were developed and analyzed in the DEIR: Alternative 18.1, No Project. A "No Project" alternative is required to be assessed under the provisions of CgQa. o Alternative 18.2, Hotel/Residential with Lower Density Residential and Park. This alternative, referred to as City Option A was prepared by Van Meter, Williams and Pollack, the City’s urban design consultant. The alternative presented a hotel/residential development with a 320-room hotel facility and 207 multiple-family and single-family residential units. In addition, this alternative included a small commercial/retail component along E1 Camino Real, a neighborhood park!open space element and no project access from Wilkie Way. o Alternative 18.3, Hotel/Residential with Lower Density Residential and Park. This alternative, referred to as City Option B was prepared by Van Meter, Williams and Pollack, the City’s urban design consultant. Under this option, the 320-room hotel facility would be limited to a 35-foot height limit. The residential component proposed 108 multiple-family, attached townhouse and single-family residential units, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Village Residential land use designation. Under this alternative, all access to the project would be provided by E1 Camino Real only. o Alternative 18.4, Hotel/Residential with Lower Density Residential and Park. This alternative, referred to Applicant Option B was prepared by the project architects. This alternative best represented the goals and objectives of the project sponsor at the time of preparation. Under this option, the hotel facility would be increased to 365 rooms with a maximum hotel building height of 50 feet. The residential component proposed 246 multiple-family and townhouse units with no project access on Wilkie Way. o Alternative 18.5, Hotel!Residential Consistent with Zoning. This alternative presented a hotel/residential development designed to comply with the CS District provisions for mixed residential and non-residential uses. These provisions require project compliance with the RM-30 District zoning standards, with the exception of the allowable floor area ratios in the CS District. This alternative included a 293-room hotel facility and 272 multiple-family residential units, with structures complying with the 35-foot height limit of the RM-30 District. Access to the site for this alternative would be provided from E1 Camino Real and Charleston Road, with no project access from Witkie Way. CMR:311:04 Page 21 of 27 o Alternative 18.6, Hotel and Residential on Separate Sites. This alternative presented a hotel development on the western 8.83 acres of the site and an adjacent residential development on the eastern 7.01 acres of the site. Under this alternative, the hotel was sized to accommodate 166 hotel rooms, while the residential development would consist of 164 multiple-family residential units. Access to the site for this alternative would be provided from E1 Camino Real, Charleston Road and Wilkie Way. o Alternative 18.7, Hotel/Residential with Larger Hotel. This alternative presented a hotel/residential, development designed to consider a larger, 375-room hotel facility with a smaller residential component of 281 multiple-family residential units. The desi~o-n and layout would be similar to the proposed project with building heights of up to 50 feet and access from E1 Camino Real, Charleston Road and Wilkie Way. Alternative 18.8, All Residential Development. This alternative presented a redevelopment of the site with residential land use only (no hotel development). Under this alternative, the site would be developed with 475 multiple-family residential units in two-three story buildings (35 feet). The 475 units represents a 30 dwelling units per acre density, which would be the maximum density permitted under the RM-30 District standards. Access to the site for this alternative would be provided by E1 Camino Real, Charleston Road and Wilkie Way. o Alternative 18.9, All Hotel Development. This alternative presents a redevelopment of the site with hotel land use only (no residential development). Under this alternative, the site would be developed with a 500-room hotel facility with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The resulting floor area ratio would be 0.4, which would be consistent with the provisions of the CS District. Access to the site for this alternative would be from E1 Camino Real, Charlestc~n Road and Wilkie Way. The DEIR provided a detailed analysis of the various alternatives, including a quantitative review of the varying traffic impacts (Table 18.2, Net Additional Traffic Generated by Each Land Use Alternative). CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative must be identified. The "No Project" alternative (Alternative 18.1) is the environmentally superior alternative. However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of CEQA, states that when the environmentally superior alternative is determined to be the "No Project" alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The DEIR identifies Alternatives 18.6 and 18.3 as secondary environmentally superior alternatives. As CMR:311:04 Page 22 of 27 discussed above, the revised project (May 2004) represent a hybrid of Alternative 18.2, 18.3, 18.4 and 18.8. As the revised project would result in a significantly smaller project than the alternatives assessed in this analysis, the resulting impacts would be less. Therefore, the revised project would be environmentally superior to these alternatives. Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) The City received over 140 comment letters/correspondence on the DEIR. In addition, many people commented on the document during the two public hearings that were held. A written response to all comments on the DEIR was prepared and presented in Volume 2- Response to Comments (February 2003). All of the letters, correspondence, e-mails and meeting minutes summarizing oral comments on the DEIR is provided in.Volume 3 (February 2003). The comments on the DEIR have resulted in changes and corrections to segments of the DEIR, including revisions to tables and recommended mitigation measures. Volume 2 contains these changes and corrections. None of the comments on the DEIR have resulted in any major changes or additions to the document, the identification of new signi.ficant environmental impacts or new mitigation measures that would be cause for re- circulation of this document. The FEIR was published and made available to the public in February 2003. Minor Modifications and Revisions to FEIR - May 2004 Over a year has passed since the February 2003 publication of the FEIR. Since then, there have been a number of changes in the status of information in the document. These changes include: The City’s adoption of the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan (January 2004), which sets forth recommended improvements to address school commute and other safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers, as well as other amenities and improvements that would not induce traffic onto nearby residential streets. The City’s adoption of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update (December 2003). Secondly, it has been determined that some information was left out of the published FEIR document, which included a detailed memorandum from the Planning Division Managing Arborist that outlines recommendations for tree preservation. Thirdly, since a revised project has been prepared and submitted to the City, this revised project should be acknowledged in the FEIR record. In order to certify the FEIR as complete, accurate and current, the changes in the information need to be identified and incorporated into the document. A memorandum has been prepared which summarizes minor modifications, CMR:311:04 Page 23 of 27 revisions and corrections to the FEIR that would incorporate or acknowledge the new information. This June 7, 2004 memorar~dum is provided in Exhibit B of Attachment 1 (draft resolution) of this report. The memorandum, together with Volumes 1 (DEIR), 2 (Response to Comments) and 3 (Appendices) would comprise the FEIR. It should be noted that the information and recommended changes contained in the attached memorandum would: 1) essentially update, amplify and clarify information that is already provided in the FEIR; 2) would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts that had not been previously identified; and 3) would not result in any new mitigation measures that had not been previously recommended. Consequently, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, a re-circulation of the document is not required. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro,~am (MMRP) The CEQA Guidelines require the preparation of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro~am (MMRP) to identify how and when the mitigation measures identified in the environmental document will be implemented. The MMRP must be approved either prior to or in conjunction with the action on the project. An MMRP has been prepared in table form and is presented in Exhibit B or Attachment 1 (resolution). The MMRP lists the required mitigation measures and the specific procedures and timing for implementing the measures. It should be noted that MMRP ackno~vledges and notes how the revised project (May 2004) would ad&ess and/or implement the recommended mitigation measures. This acknowledgement is provided in the far right column of this table. Because the Applicant has not yet filed the final, complete plans for the project revisions, the accompanying resolution reserves the City’s right to make changes in the MMRP, as necessary, to refine the MMRP to reflect the final project revisions, and the authority to make these changes in the MMRP is delegated to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The FEIR has been prepared and processed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Palo Alto Environmental Review Guidelines. The FEIR adequately assesses all potential environmental effects and presents reasonable mitigation measures that would either eliminate or reduce environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. The FEIR adequately assesses the environmental impacts of the recently revised project (Revised Project, May 2004) in that: The revised all-residential project is essentially a smaller, hybrid of the initial project and four of the FEIR alternatives described and assessed in the project FEIR. Subject to review of the final project revisions, the revised project would not result in any new significant environmenta! effects that have not been CMR:311:04 Page 24 of 27 previously analyzed, nor would it result in any new mitigation measures that have not been included and recommended in this document. o The impacts and mitigation measures presented in FEIR represent a worst-case assessment, and for many of these impacts the project revisions would either mitigate the identified impacts to a less-than-significant level or result in lower impacts than those presented in this document. o The revised project has been designed to implement and/or respond to a number of the mitigation measures recommended in the FEIR. Specifically, the revised project is designed to: a) comply with the 35-foot height limit (recommended by Mitigation 5-1); b) be significantly reduced in scale and density (recommended by Mitigation 5-2 and 7-1); c) comply with the current affordable housing policies and requirements (recommended by Mitigation 6-1); d) be reduced in size to reduce traffic impacts along the Charleston Road corridor and at local intersections (recommended by Mitigation 8-1, 8-1A and 8-1B); e) eliminate access along the Charleston Road frontage (eliminating the need for Mitigation 8- 3, 8-4, 8-5); and f) avoid impacts to and potential loss of regulated and protected trees (Mitigation 15-1 and 15-2). For those significant impacts not mitigated by the project revisions, the mitigation measures addressing those impacts in the EIR would be applied. It is recommended that the City Council certify the FEIR and approve the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro~am (MMRP). A draft resolution has been prepared, which includes the required findings for cel~ification of the FEIR. This draft resolution is provided in Attachment 1 of this report. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, the required findings for certification the FEIR are as follows: 1.The FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. The FEIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency (City Council) and the decision-making body has reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR prior to approving the project. 3.The FEIR reflects the City’s independent judgxnent and analysis. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The FEIR includes a detailed analysis of initial project consistency/conformance with City policies, provisions and standards. Chapter 17 of FEIR Volume 1 (DEIR) entitled "Project Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies" provides a table of all plan policies and ordinance provisions and standards that are pertinent to the subject property and the project (Tables 17.1 through 17.5). Some revisions to this analysis were made to CMR:311:04 Page 25 of 27 respond to comments on the DEIR. The revisions are reflected in amended pages to these tables, which are included in FEIR Volume 2 (Responses to Comments). In addition, staff has indicated the respects in which the revised project is consistent or not with adopted plans and code provisions. The determination of consistency will be reviewed again when the final project revisions are filed by the Applicant. RESOURCE IMPACT Action on this FEIR will have no resource or fiscal impact on the City of Palo Alto. However, the revised project (May 2004) will involve the construction of 185 residential units and the subdivision of land, which would generate property taxes, City development impact fees and school impact fees. As a hotel land use component is not included in the recent project revisions, no transient occupancy tax would be realized. A full resource analysis will be provided when the revised project is considered for action. ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City Council can consider the following alternatives to the staff recommendation: o Reject the FEIR as complete and direct staff to prepare a new Environmental Impact Report and a re-circulation for public review. Direct staff to revise the FEIR and return to the City Council for certification of the document. PREPARED BY: Paul Jensen Contract Planner REVIEWED BY: Chief Planning Official / DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: / STEVE EM~ Direct~or of Plannin~nity Environment CITY MANAGER APPROV~~ .~C-),k)~.,._’,~ J EMIL~-ARRIS O~T Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Exhibit A- Exhibit B- Attachment 2: Draft resolution certifying the FEIR and MMRP prepared for the proposed Hyatt Rickey’s hotel and residential development, which includes: Memorandum summarizing minor modifications and revisions to FEIR, June 7, 2004. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro~am (MMRP), June 7, 2004. Preliminary site plan of project revisions and supportive documents, May 2004. Previously distributed to the Council on May 27, 2004: Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which consists of the following: Volume 1- Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR); March 2002 Volume 2- Response to Comments on the DEIR and associated revisions to the DEIR; February 2003 Volume 3- Verbatim written comments and public hearing minutes, coded to correspond to the summary comments and related responses in Volume 2; February 2003 COURTESY COPIES Mark Solit John Sanger Robin Kennedy Deborah Ju Becky Epstein Bill Morrison Tom Crystal Millicent Hamilton Rob Schneider Gloria Kreitman Penny Ellson CMR:311:04 Page 27 of 27 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FINAL EIR) FOR THE REVISED HYATT RICKEY’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND MAKING FINDINGS THEREON PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT as fol!ows: The Counci! of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE SECTION I. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as fo!lows: A. So!it Interests Group, for Hyatt Equities, LLC ("Applicant") has made application to the City of Palo Alto ("City") for the Hyatt Rickey’s Deve!opment Project ("Project"). The initial project applications filed with the City in 1999 proposed the demolition of the existing hotel facilities on the 15.54-acre site and redeve!opment of the site with a new 320-room hote! and 302 multiple-family residential dwelling units (apartments). The Project (initial project) was designed as a single development with the hotel and apartments sharing site access, some surface parking and landscaped grounds. The deve!opment approvals required for the Project included: I) Site and Design Review approval (required for a mixed residential and non-residential use project in the CS District); 2) a Conditiona! Use Permit (required for the proposed hote! f!oor area ratio, the two Charleston Road project driveways proposed within the L Combining District and surface parking as a principal use on one of the site parcels); and c) an exception from and reduction in the off-street parking standards required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance. In response to community concerns and in response to the environmental mitigation measures recommended in the Fina! EIR and discussed in Section 3 be!ow, in May 2004, the Applicant filed plans and materials proposing revisions to the Project (revised project), which present a significantly smaller residentia! deve!opment of the site with 185 residential dwelling units. No hotel land use is proposed with this revised project, and based on representations by the Applicant, it is assumed that the Applicant does not intend to proceed with the initia! project application. The revised Project proposes similar land use concepts presented in FEIR Alternative 18.8 (All Residential Alternative) and similar site plan concepts of the initia! Project and FEIR Alternatives 18.2, 18.3 and 18.4 (Hote! and Residential Alternatives). However, the revised Project is significantly i-i smaller in scale and size and with substantially lower densities than the initial Project and the FEIR Alternatives. Furthermore, the revised Project site plan proposes Project access from E! Camino Real and Wilkie Way with no Project access provided from Charleston Road. As this revised Project is an al!-residential deve!opment proposed on a site that is !ocated within the CS-H (Service Commercial - Hotel Overlay) District, Major Architectura! Review approva! is required in-lieu of the Site and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit applications filed in 1999 for the initial Project. A tentative subdivision map wil! also be required. Upon forma! submitta!, these applications will be processed and subject to future public hearings. B. The City as the lead agency for the Project has caused to be prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") . Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15132, the Fina! EIR consists of the fol!owing documents and records: "Volume i, Draft Environmental Impact Report, March 2002"; "Volume 2, Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and associated revisions to the DEIR, February 2003"; ~Volume 3, Verbatim Written Comments and Public Hearing Minutes, Coded to Correspond to the Summary Comments and Related Responses in Volume 2, February 2003"; ~Memorandum to City File No. 99-EIA-9, Minor Modifications, Revisions and Corrections to the Fina! EIR, June 7, 2004" (Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference), and the planning and other City records, minutes, and files constituting the record of proceedings. The Final EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmenta! Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq. The Fina! EIR is on file in the office of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, a!ong with the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this reference. C.The initial Notice of Preparation was distributed on November i, 1999. A scoping meeting was held on November 15, 1999. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review between March 6, 2002 and Apri! 24, 2002. The Planning and Transportation Commission held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on Apri! 24, 2002, followed by Commission review and comment on the Draft EIR on Apri! 30, 2002. The ARB conducted a review of the Draft EIR on April 18, 2002. D.The City Council, in conjunction with this resolution, is also approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, which program is designed to ensure compliance with Project changes and mitigation measures imposed to avoid or substantially lessen the 1-2 significant effects identified in the Final EIR. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is described in detail in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is subject to revision, as needed, in light of the fina!, complete revised applications filed by the Applicant, and the City Council hereby delegates authority to the Director of the Department of Planning and Community Environment to make such changes in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (June 7, 2004) as are necessary to conform the program to the impacts of the final, complete revised application. E.The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and record of proceedings, including but not limited to, testimony received by the Council during the public hearing on the Final EIR and responses by staff during these public hearing. SECTION 2. Certification. The City Council certifies that the Fina! EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Fina! EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Counci! has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Fina! EIR, staff reports, ora! and written testimony given at public hearings on the Fina! EIR, and al! other matters deemed material and relevant before considering for taking action on the various applications related to the Project. The City Counci! hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City as lead agency. SECTION 3. Significant Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level. The City Council finds that the Fina! EIR identifies and adequately assesses the potentially significant environmental effects of the initia! 1999 Project and recent revisions to the Project (May 2004) in regard to Land Use; Population, Housing and Emp!oyment; Visual Factors (Aesthetics); Transportation and Parking; Public Services and Utilities; Noise; Air Quality; Geology and Soils; Health and Safety (Hazardous Materials); Drainage and Water Quality; Bio!ogical Resources; and Cultura! and Historic Resources. The City Council finds that, in response to each significant effect listed in this Section 3, all feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project through recent revisions (May 2004) and the application of mitigation measures identified in the Fina! EIR, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Fina! EIR, as summarized below. This follows Public Resources Code section 21081(a) (I) which allows for findings stating that for each significant effect "changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment." Each of the Mitigation Measures summarized 1-3 below is more fully described in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached Exhibit B) . In what follows, the impacts and mitigation in the Final EIR are described from the standpoint of the initial project application and then from the standpoint of the revised Project (May 2004). In some cases, the revisions to the Project eliminate the impacts, reduce them to an insignificant leve!, or in effect implement the mitigation measures in the Fina! EIR. In other cases, the application of mitigation measures in the Fina! EIR wil! be necessary to reduce the impacts of the revised project to a less- than significant level, and will be required as conditions of approva!. All of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR remain available for application to the revised project should further changes or refinements to the revised project necessitate their application to render an impact insignificant, and the Director of Planning and Community Environment has been delegated authority to make changes in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this purpose. A. Land Use Impact 5.1 concerns initial Project conflicts with the 35- foot height limit required for a mixed residentia! and nonresidential use development in the CS (Service Commercial). This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant leve! by implementation of Mitigation 5-1, which requires that the Project either: I) comply with the 35-foot building height limit; or 2) that applications be filed to request approval of a Variance or a rezoning of the property to PC (Planned Community) District, which would permit building heights in excess of 35 feet. The revised Project (May 2004) complies with the required 35-foot height limit, which would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 5.2 concerns land use compatibility impacts of the initial Project with the scale, density and height of residentia! development in the immediate, adjacent neighborhood. This impact wil! be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation 5-2, which require changes in the initial Project design to improve compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood. The revised Project (May 2004) would implement this mitigation measure by proposing smaller scale buildings along the Charleston Road and Wilkie Way edges of the Project site. The smaller scale buildings are lower in height and density, which provides the required transition to and results in better land use compatibility with the adjacent residential neighborhood. 1-4 B. Population, Housing and Employment Impact 6-1 concerns initial Project compliance with the City affordable housing goals. The recently adopted Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update (2003) recommends a 20% Be!ow Market Rate (BMR) residential unit component for projects developed on sites that are greater than five (5) acres in size. Thi~ impact wil! be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation 6-1, which has been revised to reflect the current goals and policies of the Housing Element Update. The revised Project (May 2004) include a 20% BMR housing com_monent, which would mitigate this impact. C. Visual Factors (Aesthetics) Impact 7-1 concerns the general, visual compatibility of the initia! Project and its impact on the scale, density and height of residentia! development ~in the immediate, adjacent neighborhood. The initia! Project would have substantially increase the intensity, mass and scale of deve!opment on the site. This impact wi!l be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation 7-1, which requires changes in the initial Project design to improve compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood. The revised Project (May 2004) would partially implement this mitigation measure by proposing smaller scale buildings a!ong the Charleston Road and Wilkie Way edges of the Project site. The smaller scale buildings are lower in height and density, which provides the required transition to and visual compatibility with the adjacent residentia! neighborhood. However, additiona! revisions to the revised project are necessary so that the detached, single-family homes along the Wilkie Way frontage comply with the R-I District site deve!opment standards. Impact 7-2 concerns the visual impacts associated with the amount and design of the Project’s surface parking, as viewed from E1 Camino Rea!. The initial Project was not designed to adequately site or screen this parking consistent with the E1 Camino Rea! Design Guidelines and the South E! Camino Real Design Guidelines, endorsed by the City Architectura! Review Board in June 2002. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation 7-2, which would require changes in the Project design to comply with these design guidelines. The revised Project (May 2004) would implement this mitigation measure by deleting the hote! land use and surface parking !ot and placing surface parking behind the residentia! buildings that front E! Camino Real. 1-5 D. Transportation and Parking Impact 8-1 concerns initial Project impacts on Year 2010 operation at the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection. The initia! Project would have caused this intersection to fall be!ow acceptable levels of service during the peak commute hours. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by implementation of Mitigation 8-1, which would require either: i) the installation of an additiohal eastbound, right-turn lane from Charleston Road onto southbound Alma Street; or 2) by revising the size and design of the Project so that the additiona! traffic from the Project does not warrant this right-turn lane. The revised Project (May 2004) would implement this mitigation measure in that the size and scale of the residential density of the Project has been reduced by 40%, the hotel land use has been eliminated from the Project, and site access has been modified (access from E! Camino Real and Wilkie Way only) so that the right-turn lane improvement is not warranted. Impact 8-1A concerns secondary initial Project impacts to bicyclists and the bicycle lanes a!ong Charleston Road resulting from the implementation of the eastbound, right-turn lane at the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection, recommended in Mitigation 8-1. The insta!lation of this right-turn lane would require relocation and/or elimination of the bicycle lanes. This secondary .impact is unavoidable and cannot be reduced to a less-than- significant leve!. However, as noted above, the revised Project (May 2004) would eliminate the need to install a right-turn lane at this intersection. Therefore, the bicycle lanes would be retained and this secondary impact would be eliminated. Impact 8-1B concerns secondary initial Project impacts associated with the necessary right-of-way to implement Mitigation 8-1 (installation of the eastbound, right-turn lane at the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) and retain the existing bicycle lanes. Additional right-of-way would need to be secured/purchased to accommodate the right-turn lane and bicycle lanes, as well as the relocation of the existing railroad crossing gates and signal standards. This secondary impact is unavoidable and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. However, as noted above, the revised Project (May 2004) would eliminate the need to install a right-turn lane at this intersection. Therefore, the securing of additiona! right-of-way would not be necessary and this secondary impact would be eliminated. Impact 8-2 concerns initial Project impacts at the Charleston Road/Wilkie Way intersection. The initia! Project would have generated an increase in left-turn movements from westbound Charleston Road onto Wilkie Way to access the Wilkie Way driveway. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant leve! by implementation of Mitigation 8-2, which requires changes in the signa! phasing (split phase) at this intersection. Implementation of this mitigation measure wi!l be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 8-3 concerns initial Project impacts to the traffic flow and operation along Charleston Road, resulting from eastbound left-turn movements into the easterly, main Charleston Road driveway. This impact wil! be reduced to a less-than-significant leve! by implementation of Mitigation 8-3, which requires the insta!lation of a left-turn deceleration lane on the westbound Charleston Road approach to this driveway. However, the revised Project (May 2004) would eliminate this potentia! impact and this mitigation would not be required in that: i) the revised project proposes that no access driveways a!ong the Charleston Road frontage; and 2) the recently adopted Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan (2004) recommends the installation of a center tree planting median at this location, which would prohibit left-turn movements at this location. Impact 8-4 concerns initial Project impacts on the traffic f!ow and operation along Charleston Road, resulting from outbound, left-turn movements from the main Charleston Road driveway onto westbound Charleston Road. This impact wil! be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementing Mitigation 8-4, which requires the installation of a left-turn .acceleration lane on westbound Charleston Road. However, the revised Project (May 2004) would eliminate this potential impact and this mitigation would not be required in that: i) the revised project proposes no access driveways a!ong the Charleston Road frontage; and 2) the recently adopted Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan (2004) recommends the installation of a center tree planting median at this location, which would prohibit left-turn movements at this !ocation. Impact 8-4A concerns the secondary impact that would result from potentia! diversion of initial Project traffic from the easterly, main Charleston Road driveway to the Wilkie Way driveway in the event a center median is installed along Charleston Road. The installation of a center median would prohibit all inbound and outbound left-turn movements at this Charleston Road driveway, which would cause the diversion. Implementation of Mitigation 8-4A would reduce this. impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring that project access onto Wilkie Way be prohibited or by reducing the number of residential units in the Project by 7.6%. The revised Project (May 2004) would reduce this secondary impact to a less-than-significant level in that: i) the residential density of the project has been reduced by up to 40%; and 2) the hote! land use component has been eliminated from the Project. 1-7 Impact 8-5 concerns initial Project impacts to the traffic flow and operation along Charleston Road, resulting from outbound, left-turn movements from the westerly Charleston Road dri~veway onto westbound Charleston Road. Implementation of Mitigation 8-5 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant leve! by prohibiting left-turns from this driveway onto westbound Charleston Road. The revised Project (May 2004) would eliminate this westerly driveway; therefore, this potential impact would be eliminated. Impact 8-6 concerns inadequate emergency vehicle access at two locations on the Project site plan. Implementation of Mitigation 8-6 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring that the Project site plan be revised to comply with the emergency vehicle access requirements of the Fire Department. The revised Project (May 2004) incorporate emergency vehicle access, which would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. Impact 8-7 concerns initial Project impacts to neighboring residential streets from inadequate hotel parking supply and the potential for parking overflow into the adjacent residentia! neighborhood. Implementation of Mitigation 8-7 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant leve! by either: i) revising the hotel parking so that it complies with the City’s off-street parking requirements; or 2) requiring the preparation and implementation of an on-going parking management program, which would monitor hotel event parking over time. The revised Project (May 2004) reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level in that: I) the hotel land use component has been eliminated from the Project; and 2) the site plan has been designed to comply with the City’s off-street parking standards and requirements. Impact 8-8 concerns initial Project impacts to bicycle safety at the westbound and northbound approaches to the E1 Camino Real/Charleston Road intersection. The initia! Project would have generated additiona! bicycle trips, contributing to existing, bicycle safety deficiencies at this intersection. Implementation of Mitigation 8-8 would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant leve! by requiring the Applicant to: I) dedicate additiona! right-of-way along the project frontage of E! Camino Rea! and Charleston Road to permit the widening of the bicycle route; and 2) contribute a fair share cost to eliminate the existing ~pork chop" island on the northbound E! Camino Rea! approach to this intersection. These measures will be required as a condition of revised Project approva!. Impact 8-9 concerns impacts and damage to existing public roadways associated with initial Project construction. Implementation of Mitigation 8-9 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring that the Applicant prepare 1-8 and comply with a Construction Logistics Plan, which would include a "before and afterH pavement evaluation program. This measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. E. Public Services and Utilities Impact 9-1 concerns initial Project impacts on and the capacity of the existing, !ocal sewer main. This impact concluded that the existing, 10-inch sewer main along E1 Camino Real cannot adequately accommodate the additional wastewater load generated by the Project. Implementation of Mitigation 9-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant leve! by requiring the Applicant to instal! sewer main upgrades necessary to handle the anticipated peak flows prior to Project occupancy. This measure wil! be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 9-2 concerns Project impacts on the existing, local water distribution system. This impact concluded that the residentia! component of the initial Project may require increased water distribution capacity and the construction of new water distribution facilities. Implementation of Mitigation 9-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant leve! by requiring the Applicant to analyze the water line infrastructure design and identify the improvements needed to serve the residentia! use portion of this Project. The analysis would be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit and needed improvements would be installed prior to Project occupancy. This measure wi!l be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 9-3 concerns initial Project impacts on the existing, local natura! gas distribution system. This impact concluded that the existing, two-inch gas lines within the Charleston Road and Wilkie Way right-of-ways may not be adequate to accommodate the additional gas demand to serve the Project. In addition, this impact concludes that the Project would require an underground connection across E1 Camino Real, which would necessitate the approval of the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) . Implementation of Mitigation 9-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the Applicant to instal! the needed system upgrades prior to Project occupancy. This measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impacts 9-4 and 9-5 concern initial Project impacts on police services and cumulative demands for police service. These impact concluded that the Project would result in an increased demand for police service and would contribute to the cumulative citywide increases in demand for police services in the area. Implementation of Mitigation 9-4 would reduce these impacts to a 1-9 less-than-significant leve! by: i) requiring the Applicant to pay the Public Safety Impact fee, should this fee be adopted by the City prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; or 2) requiring the City to monitor the rate of additiona! police calls per year associated with the Project area with additional services funded through the City’s General Fund. This measure wil! be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 9-6 concerns inadequate Fire Department vehicle access at two !ocations on the initial Project site plan. Implementation of Mitigation 9-6 would reduce this impact to a less<than-significant leve! by requiring that the Project site plan be revised to comply with the vehicle access requirements of the Fire Department. The revised Project (May 2004) has been designed to comply with the vehicle access requirements of the Fire Department; therefore, this impact would be.reduced to a less-than- significant level. -Impact 9-7 concerns inadequate fire flow for the initial Project. This impact concludes that the fire flows from two hydrants serving the Project site are not adequate to meet Uniform Fire Flow standards. Implementation of Mitigation 9-7 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring upgrades to the off-site water system prior to Project occupancy. This impact would sti!l be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approva!. Impact 9-8 concerns cumulative impacts associated with the Project on fire and emergency medica! services. This impact concludes that the initial Project would result in an increased demand for services and would contribute to the cumulative citywide increases in demand for fire and medica! emergency services in the area. Implementation of Mitigation 9-8 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant leve! by: i) requiring the Applicant to pay the Public Safety Impact fee should this fee be adopted by the City prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; or 2) requiring the Applicant to provide a fair share contribution toward the funding of new staff, vehicles and/or equipment; or 3) requiring the City to rely on cumulative contributions to the City’s General Fund to off-set these impacts. This impact would still be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure can be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 9-9 concerns solid waste disposal impacts associated with construction of the initial Project. Implementation of Mitigation 9-9 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the preparation of and compliance with a project-specific solid waste management and recycling plan. This !-I0 impact would still be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure wi!l be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 9-10 concerns initial Project impacts on park and recreation services. This impact concludes that the initia! 1999 Project would generate the demand for a 1.42-acre neighborhood park to serve the park needs of the initial Project residents. Implementation of Mitigation 9-10 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant leve! by requiring the Applicant to pay the City-adopted Parks and Community Facilities Impact Fee. Further, this mitigation states that, ±n the event the Project is designed to incorporate an on-site mini-park that is sufficient to serve the Project residents and satisfy the City’s neighborhood park requirements, a credit to this impact fee may be considered and approved by the City. This impact would stil! be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, the impact fee payment wi!l be required as a condition of revised Project approval. F. Noise Impact I0-i concerns exposure of the initial Project hotel and residentia! components fronting E1 Camino Rea! and Charleston Road to noise levels exceeding the exterior noise level limits/standards established by the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the City Noise Ordinance and the State Building Code. Implementation of Mitigation i0-i would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant leve! by requiring a pre-construction acoustica! study to determine appropriate noise insulation measures and other Project design measures to maintain interior noise levels at or below the City and State limits/standards. This impact would still be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure wi!l be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 10-2 concerns significant, temporary noise impacts associated with Project demolition and construction activities. Project demolition and construction has the potential to expose residences and sensitive noise receptors, including the Independent Living Center to noise levels in excess of 70 decibels. Implementation of Mitigation 10-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the preparation of and conformance with a construction !ogistics plan that would include, among others: i) limited hours of construction; 2) implementation of designated truck routes and construction staging areas; and 3) requirements for muffling construction equipment and vehicles. This impact would stil! be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure wil! be required as a condition of revised Project approval. i-ii G. Air Quality Impact ii-i concerns significant, temporary air quality impacts associated with Project demolition and construction activities. Project demolition and construction has the potential to generate dust emissions including PMI0. Implementation of Mitigation ii-I would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant leve! by requiring the preparation of and conformance with a dust contro! plan that would include, among others: I) regular watering of and hydro-seeding earth-exposed areas during grading and construction; 2) installing dust proof chutes for !oading construction debris onto trucks, as well as placing covers over tuck trailers containing debris and earth materia!; and 3) installing windbreaks such as fencing or planting to keep dust from exiting the site. This plan would be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit. This impact would still be significant- with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure wi!l be required as a condition of revised Project approval. H. Geology and Soils Impact 12-1 concerns impacts to the Project associated with deve!opment on the site, which contains expansive soils. The expansive soils found on the Project site include a two- to four- foot thick layer of fil! materia! that has variable consistency. Therefore, the Project structures have the potentia! to be exposed to differentia! ground surface settlement, which could damage structures, pavement and infrastructure. Implementation of Mitigation 12-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant leve! by requiring the preparation of and compliance with a site- specific, detailed geotechnical investigation, which addresses soi! settlement and recommendations for soi! re-compaction. This investigation would be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit. This impact would stil! be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure wil! be required as a condition on revised Project approva!. Impact 12-2 concerns the Project exposure to strong seismic shaking in the event of a major earthquake. Given the expansive soils that are found on the Project site, seismic shaking could cause differentia! settlement, which could damage structures, pavement and infrastructure. Implementation of Mitigation 12-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant leve! by requiring the preparation of and compliance with a site-specific, detailed geotechnical investigation, which addresses soil settlement and recommendations for soil re-compaction.This investigation would be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit. This impact would stil! besignificant 1-12 with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as a condition on revised Project approval. I. Health and Safety (Hazardous Materials) Impact 13-1 concerns the potential for worker exposure to hazardous substance/materials during Project demolition and construction. Specifically, a high concentration of Methy! tert- Buty! Ether (MTBE) was detected in a monitoring well located near the northwest corner of the Project site. Furthermore, the former presence of an estimated two underground storage tanks containing petroleum products has the potentia! for the contamination of soil and/or groundwater on the site. Implementation of Mitigation 13-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant leve! by requiring that a geophysica! survey of the site be conducted prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit. This survey would confirm if all known, former underground storage tanks have been properly removed and that any contaminants have been remediated. This impact would stil! be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as.a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 13-2 concerns the potential for worker exposure to asbestos during Project demolition. Specifically, asbestos- containing materials may be present in existing building materials, pavement and site improvements that would be removed for construction of the Project.Implementation of Mitigation 13-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant leve! by requiring the preparation of and compliance with an Asbestos Abatement Plan. This Plan would include, among others: I) a requirement to coordinate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in the completing of a survey of all buildings and improvements to determine the presence and extent of asbestos; 2) identification of measures for handling asbestos-containing materials; and 3) identification of measures for disposal of such materials. This plan would be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit. This impact would stil! be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 13-3 concerns the potential for worker exposure to lead-based paints during Project demolition. Specifically, lead- based paints may be present in existing building materials and site improvements, which would be removed for construction of the Project. Implementation of Mitigation 13-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the preparation of a lead-based paint assessment, which would require, among others: i) collecting and sampling existing paint chips; and 2) identification of measures for paint remova! consistent with federa!, state and local regulations. This assessment would be 1-13 prepared prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit. This impact would stil! be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approva!. J. Drainage and Water Quality Impact 14-1 concerns initial Project impacts to drainage patterns on adjacent properties and to capacity of the existing, downstream storm water facilities. While the initial Project was not expected to increase site runoff, construction of a new, more efficient drainage system for the initial Project could have potentially increased peak flow rates into the City drainage System ZB, by eliminating on-site storage. Implementation of Mitigation i4-i would either eliminate or reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant leve! by requiring the preparation of a hydrologic study and accompanying drainage calculations to demonstrate the amount of pre-construction and post-construction runoff. This study would be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit. This impact would stil! be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 14-2 concerns significant, temporary water quality impacts associated with site grading, demolition and construction. These Project activities would increase on-site soi! erosion and potentially cause increased sedimentation and discharge of construction-related pollutants into the City storm water drainage system. Implementation of Mitigation 14-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the preparation of and compliance with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent erosion and the discharge, of pollutants. The SWPPP would be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit.This measure will be required as a condition of Project approval. Impact 14-3 concerns the potentia! for significant, !ong- term water quality impacts associated with completion and operation of the Project. Specifically, the quality of storm water from the deve!oped Project would not meet current standards for the discharge of non-point source urban pollutants. Implementation of Mitigation 14-2 (above) would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant leve! by requiring the preparation of and compliance with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) . This measure will be required as a condition of Project approval. K. Bio!ogica! Resources Impact 15-1 concerns Project impacts to and loss of significant tree resources on the Project site. Specifically, the 1-14 Project has the potential to remove up to 158 existing trees, which include large specimen trees and significant tree groves. Many of the trees found on the site are ’regulated trees,’ which are subject to the guidelines established City of Palo Alto Tree Technica! Manua! and City ordinance requirements for tree preservation and protection. This impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementing Mitigation 15-1, which requires: I) revisions to the Project site plan to preserve and protect many of the ~regulated trees,’ that have been identified and inventoried by the City Managing Arborist (outlined in FEIR Volume 3, Appendix F); and 2) the preparation of and compliance with a Tree Remova! and Replacement Plan. The revised Project (May 2004) propose changes in the location of buildings and improvements to preserve and protect some but not al! of the ~regu!ated trees’ identified for preservation in FEIR Volume 3, Appendix F. Additional revisions to this revised project would be required to fully implement this measure and reduce this impact to a less-than significant leve!. The recommendation to prepare and submit a Tree Removal and Replacement Plan wil! be required as a condition of Project approval. Secondly, Impact 15-1 concerns Project impacts to potential nesting habitat for the Cooper’s Hawk, a specia!-status species. Implementation of Mitigation 15-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring that, prior to construction, an on-site survey of the site be conducted during the spring nesting season to determine the presence of Copper Hawk nests on the Project site. If present, measures such as the establishment of a buffer zone would be required during the nesting period. This measure wil! be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 15-2 concerns Project impacts to and loss of ~protected trees’ found on the Project site. Specifically, the Project has the potential to remove up to nine (9), existing ~protected trees,’ which include large coast live oaks, valley oaks and redwoods. This impact would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level by implementing Mitigation 15-2, which requires: i) revisions to the Project site plan to preserve and protect the ’protected trees,’ that have been identified and inventoried by e City Managing Arborist (outlined in FEIR Volume 3, Appendix F); and 2) the preparation of and compliance with a Tree Remova! and Replacement Plan. The revised Project (May 2004) propose changes in the location of buildings and improvements to preserve and protect the ’protected trees’ identified for preservation in FEIR Volume 3, Appendix F. The revised Project would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The recommendation to prepare and submit a Tree Remova! and Replacement Plan will be required as a condition of revised Project approva!. 1-15 Impact 15-3 concerns significant, temporary impacts to existing, tree resources on the site as a result of grading and construction for the Project. This impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementing Mitigation 15-3, which requires that tree protection measures be insta!led prior to site grading or demolition. This measure wil! be required as a condition of revised Project approva!. L. Cultural and Historic Resources Impact 16-1 concerns potential disturbance of unknown cultura! resources. The Project could disturb, destroy or impact current unknown pre-historic and cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation 16-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring that a qualified archaeo!ogist be present on site during the initia! demolition and grading phases of the Project. The qualified archaeologist would monitor these activities and implement the appropriate measures in the event resources are encountered. This measure wil! be required as a condition of revised Project approval. SECTION 4. Significant Impacts, Which Cannot Be Fully Mitigated. The City Counci! finds that the Fina! EIR identifies three (3) significant, secondary environmental effects of the Project with respect to Traffic and Parking Impacts. These significant, unavoidable impacts include: i) Secondary Impacts 8-1A (impacts to and loss of bicycle lanes at Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) and 8-1B (additional public right-of way needed at Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection), which result from implementation of Mitigation 8-1, requiring the installation of a right-turn lane on southbound Charleston Road at the Alma Street intersection; and 2) Secondary Impact 8-4A (increased traffic at and impacts to Wilkie Way driveway) resulting from implementation of Mitigation 8-4, requiring the installation of center median a!ong Charleston Road, west of Wilkie Way. As discussed in Section 3 above, feasible changes and revisions have been made to the Project (May 2004), which either eliminate or lessen these secondary impacts to a less-than- significant level. As these impacts have been either eliminated or mitigated to a less-than-significant leve!, findings presenting a Statement of Overriding Considerations are not required for approval of the revised Project (May 2004). SECTION 5. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project including the initia! 1999 Project and the revised Project (May 1-16 2004), which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, and that the City Council has evaluated the comparative merits of these alternatives, which are summarized below. In addition, the Final EIR describes a reasonable range of Project access alternatives for the purpose of evaluating impacts, which are described below, under sub-section J. The recent revisions to the Project (May 2004) reflect the environmentally superior alternative that achieves the Applicant’s current objectives. A. Alternative 18.1 - No Development Alternative This alternative does not foreclose any site development at a later time but assumes maintenance of the status quo. This means that, in addition to no development occurring, prevailing site conditions and the existing hotel-related uses (344-room facility) would continue to operate. This alternative would not meet the Applicant’s basic objectives of redeveloping the site with a mixed hotel and residentia! project. This alternative would not provide needed new housing units within the City, nor would it provide new Be!ow Market Rate (BMR) housing units to further the City’s assisted housing needs. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update (1999-2006) identifies the subject property as a housing site, offering an opportunity for a minimum yield of 120 dwelling units. Furthermore, the Housing Element Update estimates that Palo Alto’s fair share of the regions unmet housing needs is 967 dwe!ling units. This project alternative would not recognize or implement the Housing Element Update. Lastly, the City has an obligation under State law to provide opportunities for development of units for low- and moderate-income households, which can be partially met by the BMR housing units that wil! be provided by the Project (discussed under Section 3, sub-section B, above). Alternative 18.2 - Hotel/Residential with Lower Density and Park A~ternative- City Option A This alternative assumes a hotel and residential deve!opment program that is similar to the initia! 1999 Project with the same hote! size (320 rooms) but the residentia! use component would be reduced in size to 207 dwelling units and residential building heights not exceeding 35 feet. A neighborhood park/open space element is proposed at the northeast corner of the site. Shared access is proposed with the contiguous Elk’s Club property. The site plan and cross-sections for this alternative are shown on Exhibits 18.3 and 18.4 of the Draft EIR (FEIR Volume I). This alternative would reduce environmental impacts and the design and scale would be more compatible with the immediate 1-17 neighborhood, an on-site park would be gained, the hotel land use would be retained and new housing units would be provided consistent with and achieving the goals of the Housing Element Update. However, the Secondary Impacts 8-1A and 8-1B (Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) would remain at a significant, unavoidable level. Secondary Impact 8-4A would be eliminated. C o Alternative 18.3 - Hotel/Residential with Lower Density Residentia! and Park - City Omtion B This alternative assumes a hotel and residential deve!opment program that is similar to the initial 1999 Project with the same hote! size (320 rooms) but the residential use component would be reduced in size to 120 dwelling units and both hotel and residentia! building heights would not exceed 35 feet. A neighborhood park/open space element is proposed at the northeast corner of the site. Shared access is proposed with the contiguous Elk’s Club property. Further, al! vehicular access to the site would be provided via E1 Camino Rea! with no access from either Charleston Road or Wilkie Way. The site plan and cross-sections for this alternative are shown on Exhibits 18.5 and 18.6 of the Draft EIR (FEIR Volume i) . This alternative would reduce environmental impacts and the design and scale would be more compatible with the immediate neighborhood, an on-site park would be gained, the hotel land use would be retained and new housing units would be provided. However, while this alternative would reduce the significant, unavoidable Secondary Impacts 8-1A and 8-1B (Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) to a less-than-significant leve! and eliminate Secondary Impact 8-4A, it would yield the minimum number of residential units planned and recommended for this site in the Housing Element Update (minimum of 120 dwelling units). Alternative 18.4 - Hotel/Residential with Lower Density Residential and Park - Applicant’s Option This alternative was formulated by the Applicant’s architect as an alternative to the Alternatives 18.2 and 18.3. This alternative assumes a hotel and residential deve!opment similar to the initia! 1999 Project with building heights of up to 50 feet and similar site access. This alternative increases the size of the hotel (365 rooms), reduces the size of the residential component (246 dwelling units), and includes a smal! neighborhood park/open space at the northeast corner of the site. The site plan and cross-sections for this alternative are shown in Exhibits 18.7 and 18.8 of the DEIR (FEIR Volume i) . This alternative is basically the equivalent to the initial 1999 Project with some improved design elements. While some of the 1-18 impacts identified for the Project would be reduced with this alternative, including a reduction in visual compatibility impacts a!ong Charleston Road and Wilkie Way, Secondary Impacts 8-1A and 8- IB (Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) and Secondary Impact 8-4A (Charleston Road/Wilkie Way intersection) would remain at a significant, unavoidable level. The number of residentia! units would be consistent with and achieve the goals of the Housing Element Update. Alternative 18.5 - Hotel/Residential Consistent with Zoning This alternative assumes a hotel and residential program that is similar in size, design and access to the initia! 1999 Project but would be designed to meet the CS District height limit of 35 feet, which is the required building height limit for a mixed residentia! and nonresidentia! use projects. This alternative proposes a slightly smaller 293-room hotel and 272 residentia! dwelling units. The site plan and cross-sections for this alternative are shown in Exhibits 18.9 and 18.10 of the DEIR FEIR Volume i). This alternative is basically the equivalent to the initial 1999 Project with some improved design elements. While some of the impacts identified for the Project would be reduced with this alternative, including a reduction in visual compatibility impacts a!ong Charleston Road and Wilkie Way, the Secondary Impacts 8-1A and 8-1B (Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) and Secondary Impact 8-4A (Charleston Road/Wilkie Way intersection) would remain at a significant unavoidable leve!. The number of residential units would be consistent with and achieve the goals of the Housing Element Update. Alternative 18.6 - Hotel and Residential on Separate Sites This alternative assumes redevelopment of the site with hotel and residential use, except that the property would be divided so that each land use component would be on separate sites. The hote! component would occupy the western 8.83-acre portion of the 15.84-acre property, housing a smaller hotel facility of 166 rooms. The residentia! component would occupy the eastern 7-acre portion of the 15.84-acre property proposing 164 residential units. Site access is similar to the initia! 1999 Project, except that no access is proposed from Wilkie Way. The site plan and cross- sections for this alternative are shown on Exhibits 18.11 and 18.12 of the Draft EIR (FEIR Volume I) . This alternative would reduce environmental impacts and the design and scale would be more compatible with the immediate 1-19 neighborhood, the hotel land use would be retained and new housing units would be provided consistent with and achieving the goals of the Housing Element Update. The Secondary Impacts 8-1A and 8-1B (Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) and Secondary Impact 8- 4A (Wilkie Way traffic impacts) would be reduced to a less-than- significant leve!. Go Alternative 18.7 - Hotel/Residential Alternative with Larger Hotel This alternative assumes a hotel and residential program similar to the initial 1999 Project, assuming a maximum building height of 50 feet, the same site access and site plan layout. The hotel component would be larger (375 rooms) and the residentia! component would be slightly smaller (281 dwelling units) than the initia! 1999 Project. The site plan and cross-sections for this alternative are shown on Exhibits 18.13 and 18.14 of the Draft EIR (FEIR Volume I). This alternative is basically the equivalent to the initial 1999 Project in terms of project design, scale and resulting impacts. However, this alternative would result in a substantia! increase in daily and peak hour trip generation from the initial 1999 Project, which includes increased impacts to intersections that would experience significant, unavoidable effects. While this alternative would meet and achieve the housing goals of the Housing Element Update, it would result in fewer units than the initial 1999 Project. H. Alternative 18.8 - Al! Residential This alternative assumes a redevelopment of the site with an al!-residentia! land use program. This alternative presents deve!opment of up to 475 apartment units, which would be consistent with the maximum permitted density of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Multiple-Family Residential land use designation (adopted for this site) and the density permitted under the current CS District zoning (30 dwelling units per acre). This alternative is designed to comply with the RM-30 District standards, which include a 35- foot building height limit. The site plan and cross-sections for this alternative are shown on Exhibits 18.15 and 18.16 of the Draft EIR (FEIR Volume i) . This alternative would reduce environmental impacts and the scale would be more compatible with the immediate neighborhood. This alternative would yield significantly more residential units than the amount of housing anticipated in the recent Housing Element Update (minimum of 120 residential units). This alternative would result in a significant reduction in the amount of daily traffic currently being generated from the site (12% less than the 1-20 existing hotel, so Secondary Impacts 8-1A and 8-1B (Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) would be reduced to a less-than- significant leve!. However, Secondary Impact 8-4A (Wilkie Way traffic impacts) would remain at a significant, unavoidable level. Furthermore, the project density would not transition to !ower densities along the property edges abutting the adjacent residentia! neighborhoods. i. Alternative 18.9 - All Hotel This alternative assumes a redevelopment of the site with an a!l-hotel land use program. This alternative presents a hotel complex deve!opment with 500 rooms. This alternative is designed to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and current CS District zoning, which permits a maximum f!oor area ratio of 0.4. This alternative presents building heights of up to 35 feet. The site plan and cross-sections for this alternative are shows__ on Exhibits 18.17 and 18.18 of the Draft EIR (FEIR Volume i) . This alternative, in part, would reduce environmental impacts and the scale would be more compatible with the immediate neighborhood. .However, this alternative would yield no residentia! units, and therefore, would not meet the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update. While some of the traffic impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level, Secondary Impacts 8-1A and 8-1B (Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) and Secondary Impact 8-4A (Wilkie Way traffic impacts) would be remain at a significant, unavoidable level. J.Alternative 18.10 -Hotel/Residential Access Variations Four site access alternatives were assessed to determine the amount of result<ng traffic impacts from the initia! 1999 Project at three of the local intersections (E! Camino Real/Charleston Road, Charleston Road/Wilkie Way and Charleston Road/Alma Street intersections). Access Alternative A presents access to the site via E1 Camino Real only (no Charleston Road or Wilkie Way access). Alternative B presents access to the site via E1 Camino Real and a Charleston Road access with a right-turn inbound/outbound only (no Wilkie Way access). Alternative C presents access to the site via E1 Camino Rea! (two driveways) and Charleston Road (two driveways) no access from Wilkie Way access0. Alternative D presents hote! access exclusively from E1 Camino Rea! (two driveways) and residential access exclusively from Charleston Road (one driveway). The Final EIR concludes that the four site access alternatives would result in varying impacts at the three !ocal intersections. Alternative A is the environmentally superior 1-21 access option, which reduces traffic impacts at these local intersections to a less-than-significant leve!, with the exception of a significant, AM peak hour impact at the E1 Camino Rea!/Charleston Road intersection. Alternative B would eliminate traffic impacts at the Charleston Road/Wilkie Way intersection but impacts at the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection (Secondary Impacts 8-1A and 8-1B) would remain at a significant, unavoidable level, unless the Project is reduced in size. Alternatives C and D would reduce traffic impacts at the Charleston Road/E! Camino Real and the Charleston Road/Wilkie Way intersections to a less-than- significant leve!; however, impacts at the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection (secondary impacts 8-1A and 8-1B) would remain at a significant, unavoidable level, unless the Project is reduced in size. In addition, the significant impacts associated with inbound and outbound left-turn movements at the Charleston Road driveway(s) would remain significant under access Alternatives C and D. SECTION 6. Impacts Found Not To Be Significant. The City finds that the Final EIR neither expressly identifies, nor contains any substantial evidence identifying, significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to any of the environmenta! impacts dismissed through the scoping process with "no" responses on the initia! Environmenta! Assessment (contained in Volume 1 - Draft EIR, Appendix 22.1) and with respect to the potentia! impacts identified as not significant in Section 19.5 of FEIR Volume 1 (Draft EIR) . SECTION 7. Substantial evidence supporting each and every finding made herein is contained in the Fina! EIR and in the record of proceedings on the Project. SECTION 8. The Council finds that there is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion that significant new information has been added to the Fina! EIR so as to warrant re-circulation of the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The City Council finds that the new information added to the Fina! EIR did not change the EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantia! adverse environmenta! effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the City or the Applicant has declined to implement. None of the new information added to the Fina! EIR disc!osed any new significant environmenta! impact which would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; or that any substantial increase in the severity of an environmenta! impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a leve! of insignificance; or that a feasible project alternative or 1-22 mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmenta! impacts of the project but the City or the Applicant has declined to implement them. This finding is based upon all the information presented in the Final EIR and record of proceedings. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment ATTACHED EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT A: Memorandum summarizing minor modifications, revisions and corrections to the Fina! EIR; June 7, 2004 EXHIBIT B:Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; June 7, 2004 1-23 PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum Date: To: CC: From: Subject: September 9, 2002 Paul Jensen, Project Planner Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official Wagstaff and Associates Dave Dockter - Managing Arborist, Planning Division Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Proiect - Response to Comments - EIR. Review 99-EIA-9; 99D-02; 99-ARB-56 & 99-UP-24 I am responding to inquiries made as part of the DEIR process. I would like to present the following clarifications as it relates to the biological resources section of the Environmental Impact Report and the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Existing Tree Survey I have some history of involvement early in this project (1999 review of the Mayne Tree Service tree survey). I have reviewed the survey and confirmed the accuracy thereof. As a result of a January 1999 site visit with Mayne Tree Service, revisions to the survey were made. The existing tree survey is accurate, with one minor exception: Eucalyptus tree # 205 is actually a Eucalyptus leucoxylon, White lronbark, and not a E. viminalis, Manna Gum as indicated in the tree survey. This white ironbark tree is an extremely large specimen for this species growing in this area and should be considered for retention because of its size and scale. Regulated Trees to be Retained and Protected Regulated trees are defined in the Tree Technical Manual (TTM), PAMC, §8.10.030, and the City’s document for standards and specifications adopted to implement the tree ordinance (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, PAMC 8.10). Regulated trees include three categories of trees (see TTM, Introduction, Section 1.24): (1)Street Trees (2)Protected Trees (3)Designated Trees Street trees are trees growing in the city-owned right-of-way. Protected trees are coast H:kAll DatakPalo Alto ProjectskHyatt Rickey’skRegulated trees FEIR-I)2.doc redwoods, valley oaks and coast live oaks. Designated trees are those trees that are specifically designated to be retained located on a site that is subject to discretionary review of a project. A designated tree is a tree or groupings of trees that have a particular significance because or their function as a unique natural feature under the standards for review [PAMC 16.48.120 (a)(11 )], "Whether natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project;" Pursuant to the response to inquiries in the DEIR process, I recently conducted a site inspection with the project planner and approval of the project sponsor. The purpose of the visit was to verify elements in the DEIR and to identify trees that fall within the ’designated tree’ category. The evaluation methodology that was used is consistent with that employed for all development applications reviewed by Planning and Community Environment for projects throughout the City. Examples of designated trees listed below include several large, mature or picturesque landscape specimens, groupings of trees functioning together as a grove, matched trees suitable for relocation or those trees functioning as a significant screening element for the adjacent neighborhood areas (the Landscape Setback overlay trees are also included in the Designated Tree category.) The following list of 149 Regulated Trees are those to be preserved (except for #113), protected and must be integrated into the future design considerations of the project: Tree Designation Street Trees (8): Protected Trees (24): (all are oaks unless indicated) Designated Trees (117): (#1-7 are off-site) Tree #Comments # 93, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 and 102 # 2i,, 57, 80, 81, 82, 113", 114, 182, 189, 190, 191, 193, 194, 204, 225 226,275, 318 I’, 325, 326, 333, 338, 339 and 340 # 8-490, 72, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 96, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111,112, 126, 137:I:, 138:1:, 139:I:, 140:I:, 141:1:, 142:1:, 1435, 144:;t:, 145v, 1465, 147:1:, 1485, 1495, 150-1820, 1950, 205,277, 281#, 282, 302, 303,315#, 316, 317, 336, "113-oak in hazardous condition requires mitigation if removed. ,t-indicates redwood 0-Part of the Landscape Overlay District ~-part of a cedar grove. #-matched set of magnolia suitable for relocation EIR Mitigation Mitigation’s 15-1 and 15-2 require clarification. The EIR correctly references mitigation for replacement trees consistent with the standards established in the Tree Technical Manual. Removal of protected trees is strictly regulated and cannot be removed under any circumstance unless it is specifically meets the criteria allowed in the Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, PAMC 8,10.050. The actual replacement criteria that will be applied to the project for mitigation, the Canopy Replacement Formula, Section 3.20 of the Manual, is provided below. The canopy replacement formula adopted by the City is better suited for mitigating the removal of protected or significant designated trees because H:~ll Data~Palo Alto Projects~-Iyatt Rickey’skRegulated trees FEIR-’02.doc it evaluates the size and replacement of the canopy removed due to project impacts. This is in contrast to the customary 2:1 or 3:1 ratio replacement of smaller trees. The following replacement mitigations will be in effect for this project. ¯Street trees, trees growing in the right-of-way. Street trees shall be replaced as required at the discretion of the Director of Public Works or Director of Planning and Community Environment. ¯Protected Trees and Designated Trees. The replacement ratio for protected and designated trees, if approved for removal, shall be, at a minimum, the following: TABLE - TREE CANOPY -REPLACEMENT STANDARD Canopy of the Removed Tree (Average distance across the canopy*) 4’-9’ Replacement Trees Two 24" Box Size (minimum) Three 24" Box Size Four 24" Box Size Six 24" Box Size Alternative Tree One 36" Box Size 1-’-27’Two 36" Box Size 28’-40’Two 48" Box Size 40’-56’Two 48" Box & Two 36" Box Size 56’-60’Two 48" Box 72" Box size or greater Two 36" Box &specimen tree Two 24" Box Size Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.20 Impact 15.2 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The approved landscape plan for the project will incorporate the mitigation trees into the site plan. Because the canopy replacement formula is based on an individual canopy size of the tree, it will not conform to a (2:1) standard ratio. Thus, a Loss of Existing Onsite Vegetation Chart will be required to quantify the actual number and size of trees to determine the number and size of the required mitigation trees. Mitigation 15-2: Project Impacts on Regulated Trees (street trees, protected trees and designated trees) shall reference how many trees may be potentially impacted. The project sponsor shall provide a Loss of Existing Onsite Vegetation Chart. A tree preservation section shall be prepared for the project and include a graphic of the location of all regulated trees to be preserved, indicating the necessary tree protection zone needed for survival for each tree; and includes a table listing separating the protected tree, designated trees and trees to be removed Impact 15-3: Project Construction Impacts on Trees. This reference applies to ’protected oaks and redwoods’ and ’other significant designated trees’ to be preserved, as provided for in Title 16, Section 16.48.120 (11) Standards for Review. This concludes my clarification and response to comments for the Environmental Impact Report for the Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project. H:~All DatakPalo Alto Projects~I-tyatt Rickey’skRegulated trees FEIR-’02.doc Photos of various examples of designated and protected trees follow. Designated Trees- Cedars #103-109 Designated Trees-Atlas Cedars #110 & 112 Protected Redwood #318 H:kAll Data~Palo Alto ProjectskHyatt Rickey’skRegulated trees FEIR-’02.doc Designated Tree- Mature Southern Magnolia Specimen #126 Designated Tree- Mature Pecan Specimen #along El Camino Real H:2~ll DatakPalo Alto ProjectskHyatt Rickey’skRegulated trees FEIR-I)2.doc Designated Trees- Cedar Grove #137-149 H:kAI] Data~Palo Alto ProjectsEHyatt Rickey’skRegulated trees FEIR-’02.doc Designated Tree- White Ironbark #204 Designated Trees- Row of Elms #27-41 along Wilkie Way (Landscape Overlay District Trees) H:~All Data~Palo Alto Projects~-Iyatt Rickey’s~Regulated trees FEIR-~02.doc 4202 Suzanne Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306-4335 April 22, 2002 RECEIVED APR ~ 3 ZOOZ Depar’anent oi Planning ~ Gommunlty Environment Mr. Steve Emslie Director, City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: DEIR for the proposed Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project Dear I~. Emslie: The Palo Alto Orchards Association recommends that the subject DEIR not be approved as submitted. The DEIR appears to be biased towards the developer and lacks quality and depth relative to the mitigating issues cited for each option, i.e., mitigating issues do not appear to represent the residents’ viewpoints or, if stated, addresses only the surface issues rather than an in-depth analysis. Of particular concern is the impact to the traffic on both Arastradero and Charleston, both ’ of which should be addressed as an inte~al street rather than two separate streets in that one feeds into the other and has a direct influence on each other. Arastradero already is a congested school corridor for four schools (Gunn High, Jewish Community Center School, Juana Briones Elementary School, and the Palo Alto Montessori School). With the reopening of the Terman Middle School in 2003 and the possible opening of the proposed Children’s International School on Clemo Avenue, the proposed project will add to the already congested traffic on Arastradero during peak hours (3 periods during the day) and create further danger to the safety of our children using the Arastradero/Charleston school corridor. There are many senior citizens who live in our neighborhood and surrounding apartments such as the Tan Plaza who either walk to the local drug store (Walgreens) or cross Arastradero to get to the bus stops in addition to the young children crossing the street, to get~ to the no;~hborho~d.~.~, . ~ par;: ....... ~q-h_.~ ~r~fi~’~ congestion as well asthe speeding cars on Arastradero will eventually result in fatal accidents, rather than just injuries and/or near misses. We do not believe that the subject DEIR adequately addresses this issue nor has an adequate traffic simulation study been done taking into account the frequency of the trains crossing Charleston during the same rush hour periods. An additional concern is the continuing deuadation in the quality of our neighborhoods and our quality of life over the past few years. Housing and business developments have been approved without apparent concern to its impact to the residential neighborhoods and its neighborhood parks such as the Juana Briones Park, which is filled to capacity during the summer periods and holidays. Many existing commercial developments have not been adequately maintained creating an "eyesore" especially along the E1 Camino Rea! corridor. In summary, we recommend that the subject DEIR not be approved pending an in-depth analysis of the traffic impact, the quality of life of the surrounding neighborhood residents, and the adequacy of the City’s budget to sustain the services, which it currently provides to its residents without further de~adation or budget impact. Inputs from the neighborhood residents should be factored into the analysis rather than being biased towards the developer. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Henry Lum President, Palo Alto Orchards Association CC: ’ ~G/~i~i’~of÷P al o~~ Planning [Division Frank Benest, Manager, City of Palo Alto Victor Ojaldan, Mayor, City of Palo Alto PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT A Date:June 7, 2004 To:CiD, File 99-EIA-9 From:Planning and Community Environment Department Subject:Minor Modifications, Revisions and Corrections to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project, 4219 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto Background In February 2003, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project was completed and published. The FEIR is comprised of the following documents: Volume 1 - Draft Envirollmental Impact Report (DEIR), March 2002 Volume 2 - Responses to Conmaents on the DEIR and associated revisions to the DEIR, February 2003 Volume 3 - Verbatim written comments and public hearing minutes, coded to correspond to the summary comments and related responses in Volume 2, February 2003 Subsequent to the publication of this FEIR, on April 14, 2003, the City Council directed staff to prepare a plan for transportation, urban design and landscape improvements for the Charleston/Arastradero Road Corridor. This plan was initiated as a follow-up to the Charleston Road Corridor Traffic Management and Safety Study, which was reviewed and accepted by the City Council in December 2000. The purpose of the improvement plan is to address school commute and other travel safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclist and drivers, as well as to incorporate residential amenities along the corridor without inducing traffic onto nearby residential streets. The City Council imposed an interina moratorium on the processi.ng of plarming applications and permits for projects along the Charleston Road!Arastradero Col~dor while this plan was being prepared. Consequently, the processing of the Hyatt Rickey’s project and certification of the project FEIR was tolled. The interim moratorium was lifted in Spring 2004. Since the February 2003 publication of the FEIR, there have been some changes in the status of information provided in this document. In order to certify the FEIR as complete, accurate and EXHIBIT A Minor Modifications, Revisions and Corrections to FEIR for Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project June 7, 2004 Page ,4 -2 current, the changes in information need to be identified and incorporated into the document. The purpose of this memorandum is to identify these changes and incorporate the appropriate revisions and modifications into the FEIR to ensure that the document is current. It should be noted that the information that is being revised in the FEIR would: a) essentially update, clarify and amplify information that is already provided in the FEIR; b) not result in any new significant impacts that had not been previously identified; and c) not result in the need for new mitigation measures that had not been previously recommended. Therefore, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, a re-circulation of the docmnent is not required. Updated Information The FEIR currently includes extensive discussion of and reference to several City studies and projects that were underway when the FEIR was published (February 2003). Since the FEIR publication, the following action has been taken on City-sponsored studies/projects that are pertinent to the Hyatt Rickey’s project site: o The Charleston!Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan was completed and adopted by the City Council in January 2004. This plan proposes improvements along Charleston Road, which should be ackaaowledged in the FEIR. As follow-up to the City Council action to impose Citywide Development Impact Fees (March 25, 2002), fee amounts were established/set for the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) and a Community Facilities Impact Fee (October 7, 2002). However, a Public Safety Impact, which had been recommended in the initial City Manager’s Report on impact fees, has not been adopted. Lastly, the Housing Impact Fee was updated. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update was adopted by the City Council on December 2, 2003 (Resolution No. 8232). This update includes changes in the City’s below market rate (BMR) housing requirements for new development. For development of sites that are larger than five acres in size, the BMR component requirement was increased from 15% to 20%. The South E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines (2002) were endorsed by the City Architectural Review Board on June 6, 2002. However, these guidelines are not referenced in the FEIR. As the City is currently using these guidelines in the assessing new development projects in the South E1 Camino Real area, reference to these g~idelines in this FEIR is appropriate. Secondly, in May 2004, the project sponsor filed revisions to the initial hotel and residential project. The revised project presents a significantly smaller development of the site with 185 residential units. This revised project does not include a hotel land use component. It has been determined that this FEIR adequately addresses and covers all of the potential environmental effects of and the mitigation measures that would be required for this revised project for the following reasons: The revised project would retain some of the basic concepts and description of the initial project and the project alternatives studied in the FEIR, except at a significantly smaller EXHIBIT A Minor Modifications, Revisions and Corrections to FEIR for Hyatt Rickey "s Hotel and Residential Project June 7, 2004 Page A-3 scale and size. This revised project is essentially a smaller-scale hybrid of the initial hotel!residential project and several of the FEIR project alternatives. Specifically, the revised project presents the same land use concepts presented in FEIR Alternative 18.8 (an all residential development containing up to 475 residential units), and proposes similar site planning concepts as the initial project and FEIR Alternatives 18.2, 18.3 and 18.4 (mixed hotel and residential developments with a lower residential density a!ong the Charleston Road and Wilkie Way border of the site). Since the FEIR Alternatives analysis presented in Section 18 provides a detailed and quantitative review of impacts at a ~eater de~ee not typical of a Project EIR, the City can rely on this environmental document to consider approval of or action on any of the FEIR alternatives or a revised project that is similar to the project or these alternatives. The revised project has been designed to respond to community concerns and implement a number of the mitigation measures recommended in the FEIR. While this revised project would result in an all-residential development of the site instead of the initially proposed mixed hotel and residential development, this revised project would not result in any new si~onificant environmental impacts that had not been previously identified and analyzed. Actually, the revised project responds to and implements a number of the FEI~R recommended mitigation measures, ~vhich would result in the elimination or reduction of certain significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. Other si~aificant impacts would be mitigated by application of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Lastly, it has been discovered that that there are several documents referenced in the FEIR, which had not been included in the published document. Furthermore, several errors were found, which require correction. These include the following: A September 9, 2002 melnorandum from Dave Dockter, Planning Division Managing Arborist is referenced in the FEIR (FEIR Appendix C) but is not included as an appendix. This memorandum identifies tree resources on the project site that are regulated by the City and reconamendations for tree preservation. DEIR comment letter number 71 (letter from Henry Lum, April 22, 2002) was not included in FEIR Volume 3. Modifications, Revisions and Corrections to FEIR The following minor modifications, revisions and corrections are incorporated into the FEIR (underline!strikeout format): The following new sub-section (Section 3.8) is added to Volume 1 (DEIR), Section 3 (Project Description), page 3-50 to address and incorporate the project revisions filed by the project sponsor in May 2004: EXHIBIT A Minor Modifications, Revisions and Corrections to FEIR for Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project June 7, 2004 Page A-4 "3.8 REVISED PROJECT- MAY 2004 In May 2004, the project sponsor filed revisions to the proiect described in this section and assessed in this environmental document. The revised project proposes an all- residential development of the 15.84-acre site, with no hotel land use component. The revised project presents a similar land use cohcept as FEIR Alternative 18.8, described and analyzed in Section 18 of this document. Furthermore, the revised pro_iect presents site-planning features that are similar to the initially proposed project and FEIR Alternatives 18.2, 18.3 and 18.4. However, the revised proiect proposes a development that is substantially lower in scale, size and density than the initial project and these alternatives. In part, the proiect revisions ~vere filed to address and mitigate the envirormaental impacts and recomrnended mitigation measures summarized in this environmental document. The revised prqiect proposes a redevelopment of the 15.84-acre site with 185 for-sale residential units: Some of the residential units are desi,~oned to front and orient toward E1 Camino Real, Charleston Road and Wilkie Way. These units would be sited to meet setback requirements and would respect the existin~ landscape buffer (L Combinin~ District) along the Charleston Road and Wilkie Way frontages. The maioritv of the residential units are oriented inward to the project site and are sited around clusters and courts. Buildin~ to site area coverage is estimated at 26%. The project site would be accessed from E1 Camino Real (one main driveway) and Wilkie Way (existin~ driveway). The E1 Camino Real driveway would serve as the main, primary access to the development. No physical chan~es to the existin~ Wilkie Way driveway are proposed. Unlike the initial project, no access to the proiect site is proposed from Charleston Road. Internal site circulation is essentially provided by a private loop road, which would provide direct access to units or access to private auto courts or driveways. Uncovered guest parking is proposed throughout the project site to meet minimum off-street parkin~ requirements. The revised site plan is desi~oned to include large expanses of conmaon open space and landscaped ~ounds (32% of the site coverage). This common open space has been arranged to preserve many but not all of the "regulated trees" (which include protected trees) that are found on the site. These trees are referenced in Section 15 (Biolo,~ical Resources) of this document. As this revised project proposes an all-residential development within the CS (Service Commercial) District, it is required to comply with the standards of the RM-30 (Multiple-Family Residential) District and the City’s Multiple-Family Residence District Guidelines (PAMC Chapter 18.28). The revised pro_iect is desia-ned to comply with the spatial standards of the RM-30 District, including daylight plane and EXHIBIT A Minor Modifications, Revisions and Corrections to FEIR for Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residen~iaI Project June 7, 2004 Page A-5 special setback requirements. However, the revised project, includes detached, single-family homes, which ~voutd not comply with the R-1 District site development re,~o~ulations. The proposed residential unit types include: ¯Fifteen (15) taro-story, detached single-family homes sited alon~ the Wilkie Way frontage. Exclusive of the land area within the L Combinin~ District, this band of homes would result in a lower density. Ninety-five 95 attached row homes and 75 attached townhomes. The row homes are desia-ned to be 2100 square feet in size. while the attached townhomes would be 1700 square feet. ~ These units would range in height from two- to three-stories, with no structure exceedin~ 35 feet. The two-story structures are sited along the proiect edges frontin~ Charleston Road and E1 Camino Real. The taller, three-story buildings are sited within the proiect site, where they are less visible from off-site. ¯Each residential unit is desi~aed to include an attached ~,o-car garage. Unlike the initial proiect, no sub-surface parking garages are proposed. ¯Each residential unit is desi~aed to include a fenced, private yard/patio area. The revised project proposes that 20% of the units (37 townhomes) be reserved for sale as below-market-rate (BMR) units. This proposal is intended to comply with the City’s recently adopted Housin~ Element policy, ~vhich requires a 20% BMR housin~ component for development projects on sites of five acres or more. As this revised project is essentially a smaller hybrid of the project and four FEIR alternatives described and assessed in this environmental document, it would not result in any new si~onificant environmental effects that have not been previously analyzed, nor would it result in any new mitigation measures that have not been included and recommended in this document. The impacts and mitigation measures presented in this document represent a worst-case assessment, and the project revisions would either mitigate the identified impacts to a less-than-si,o-nificant level or result in lower impacts than those presented in this document. Nonetheless, prior to approval of plamaing applications for this revised project, it will need to be demonstrated how this environmental document adequately assesses the impacts of this revised project in order The following changes address and incorporate the back~ound and recommendations of the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan (January 2004): EXHIBIT A Minor Modifications, Revisions and Corrections to FEIR for Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project June 7, 2004 Page A-6 ao New text is added to Volume 1 (DEIR), Section 8 (Transportation and Traffic), page 8-4, under the discussion of Charleston Road, add new fourth and fifth para~aphs to read: "As follow-up to and implementation of the Charleston Road Corridor Trq~c Management and Safiet)~ Study, on April 14. 2003. the City Council directed staff to prepare a plan addressing transportation and urban design improvements along the CharlestordArastradero corridor. Simultaneously. the City Council imposed an interim moratorium on the processing of planning applications and permits for prqiects along the Charleston Road/Arastradero corridor while this plan was being prepared. The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan was completed and adopted by the City Council in January 2004. The purpose of the improvement plan is to: a) address school commute and other travel safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclist and drivers: and b) incorporate residential amenities alon~ the corridor without inducin~ traffic to shift onto nearby residential streets, while maintaining capacity for existing and projected traffic. Improvements recommended in the plan include visual frontage improvements (lighting, si.gnage, speed advisory sig~sL infrastructure improvements (traffic adaptive si~onal technology, medians, lane reductions, lighted crosswalks. vegetation islands, continuous bike lanes, colored asphalt bike lanea pedestrian bulbouts) and City transit service improvements to address school commute and other travel safety concerns for all travel modes. All improvements would be contained within the existing public right-of-way width along Charleston Road and Arastradero Road. With re~ard to the portion of the corridor that is immediately adjacent to the Hvatt Rickey’s project site (that portion alon~ Charleston Road between E1 Camino Real and Wilkie Way) the plan recommends improvements, which include the following, anaong others: Removal of the two free ri2ht-turn ("porkchop") islands to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety on the southern le~ of the E1 Camino Real and Charleston!Arastradero Road intersection. Provision for continuous bicycle lanes to enhance cycling safety. Tinting or painting these bicycle lanes for hi2her visibility to both motorists and cyclists and the corridor. Retaining the four lane travel lanes (two in each direction) on Charleston Road from E1 Camino Real to Alma with intermittent "tree islands" (small medians), Installation of frontage improvements, includin~ street trees and new street lighting along the corridor. The plan recommends a first phase demonstration program, which would be implemented to test temporary improvements durin~ a trial period. The finding sources and options that have been identified in the plan include federal, state and regional ~ants, as well as traffic impact fees. EXHIBIT A Minor Modifications, Revisions and Corrections to FEIR for Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project June 7, 2004 Page A- 7 It should be noted that preparation of the improvement plan included a modelin~ of existin~ and future traffic conditions alon~ the corridor by TJKM Transportation Consultants. One analysis of the modeling assessed land use ~owth based on the Pato Alto Comprehensive Plan (2015 .build-out), which assumed that the Hvatt Rickev’s site would be redeveloped with 150 residential units and 100 residential hotel suites. TJKM also assessed a 2015 scenario incorporating "known proposed projects," which included the Hvatt Rickev’s development as proposed and describe in this FEIR. The purpose of the traffic analysis was to demonstrate how the corridor intersections would function and operate durin~ AM and PM peak hour conditions with implementation of the plan measures. With the improvements that are proposed, TJKM concluded that two of the intersections alon~ the corridor would operate at improved level of service conditions." New text added to Volume 1 (DEIR), Table 2.1 and Section 8 (Transportation and Traffic, page 8-51, Mitigation 8-1 (required right turn lane on eastbound Charleston Road to southbound Alma Street), add new last paragaph to read: "The installation of a right-turn lane at the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection, as recommended by this mitigation measure would not be consistent with the improvements recornmended in the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan (2004). This improvement plan does not recommend a right- turn at this intersection. Furthermore, this plan recommends that all improvements are to be contained within the existing, public ri~ht-of-wav width alon~ Charleston Road. As noted above, additional public right-of-way would need to be purchased to accommodate the right-turn lane and retain the existing bicycle lanes." New text added to Volume 1 (DEIR), Table 2.1 and Section 8 (Transportation and Traffic, page 8-59, Mitigation 8-3 (provide a left-turn deceleration lane at the Charleston Road main driveway entrance), add new last paragaph to read: "The installation of a left-turn lane deceleration lane at this Charleston Road location, as recommended bv this mitigation measure, would not be consistent with the improvements recommended in the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan (2004). This improvement plan recormnends the installation of a center, tree plantin~ median at this location, which would prohibit a vehicle crossing. New text added to Volume 1 (DEIR), Table 2.1 and Section 8 (Transportation and Traffic, page 8-60, Mitigation 8-4 (prohibit outbound left-turns at the Charleston Road main driveway entrance) and page 8-65, Mitigation 8-5 (prohibit left-turns at Charleston Road westerly driveway entrance), add new last para~aph to read: EXHIBIT A Minor Modifications, Revisions and Corrections to FEIR for Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project June 7, 2004 Page ,’4-8 "This mitigation measure would be consistent with the improvements recommended in the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor hnprovement Plan (2004). This improvement plan recommends the installation of a center, tree planting median at this locatiom which would prohibit a vehicle crossing." New text added to Volume 1 (DE[R), Table 2.1 and Section 8 (Transportation and Traffic, page 8-85, Mitigation 8-8 (bicycle lane/intersection improvements), add new last paragaph to read: "This miti.~ation measure would be consistent with the improvements reconamended in the Charleston!Arastradero Corridor hnprovement Plan (2004). This improvement plan recommends the removal of the right-turn "porkch0p" island." The following changes address and incorporate the current status of the Citywide Development Impact Fees: Volume 1 (DE[R), Section 8 (Transportation and Parking), sub-section 8.1.7 (Planned Local Circulation Improvements or Changes), page 8-28 is revised to add new sub-section 8.1.7c) to read: "(c) Traffic Impact Fees (TIF). On October 7, 200Z the City Council adopted Ordinance 4763~ which anaended Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) required for new development. A new TIF was adopted for new development projects in the Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real CS Zonin~ District. Per this ordinance, the nonresidential development portion of the Hyatt Rickev’s Hotel and Residential proiect would be subiect to these fees, but the fee would apply only to new buildin~ square footage. The residential development portion of the project would be exempt from the TN. As this fee is adopted and required as a standard condition of project approval no separate or additional mitigation is required to impose this fee on the proposed project." Volume 1 (DE[R), Mitigation 9-4 (Table 2.1 and Section 9, Public Services and Utilities) addresses a Public Safety Impact Fee for police service impacts, which has not been adopted by the City Council. Therefore, the first portion of this mitigation measure is revised to read: "Mitigation 9-4. In the event the City adopts a Public Satiety hnpact Fee prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed proiect, the project shall be subject to this fee to mitigate police service impacts.lf t!ze new Pzzb!ic ew a r0va EXHIBIT A Minor Modifications, Revisions and Corrections to FEIR for Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project June 7, 2004 Page A-9 Otherwise, the PAPD shall continue to monitor the rate of additional police calls per year associated with the project area .... " Volume 1 (DEIR), Mitigation 9-8 (Table 2.1 and Section 9, Public Services and Utilities) addresses a Public Safety Impact Fee for fire protection/emergency medical service impacts, which has not been adopted by the City Council. Therefore, Mitigation 9-8 (1) is revised to read: "Mitigation 9-8. Implement any one of the following alternative mitigations in order to reduce identified cumulative impacts on fire and EMS services to less- than-significant levels: In the event the City adopts a Public Sq/~etv Impact Fee prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed proiect, the proiect shall be subiect to this fee.lf +*" [(2) and (3) remain unchanged] do Volume 1 (DEIR), Mitigation 9-10 (Table 2.1 and Section 9, Public Services and Utilities) addresses a Parks and Community Facilities Impact Fee for park and recreation impacts, which has been adopted and set since the publication of the DEIR (March 2002). Therefore, this mitigation measure is replaced in its entirety to read: "Mitigation 9-10. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed project, the project sponsor shall pay the City-adopted Par’ks and Community Facilities Impact Fee. The fee shall be imposed as a condition of proiect approval. Should the proiect site plan be revised to incorporate an on-site mini-park sufficient to serve the proiect residents and satisfy the City’s neighborhood park requirement, a credit to this impact fee may be considered and approved by the City. Implementation of this measure would reduce project impacts on neighborhood and district park facilities, recreational pro~ams, and libraries to a less-than-s{gni[~cant level." The follmving changes address and incorporate the Housing Element Update, adopted by the City in 2003" Volume 1 (DEIR), Section 6 (Population, Housing and Employment), page 6-13 (Compliance with City Affordable Housing Goals), the second and third paragaphs are replaced in their entirety to read: EXHIBIT A Minor Modifications, Revisions and Corrections to FEIR for Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Projedt June 7, 2004 Page A- ] 0 "The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housin~ Element Update (1999-2006) was adopted in December 2003. As a result, the BMR requirement for this project has been increased to 20% (or 60 units based on the proposed residential unit count of 302). For mixed residential/commercial projects on sites of five acres or ,aTeater, the provision requires that a 20% BMR component be applied for the housin~ component, or that a payment of a BMR fee be applied for the commercial component, whichever yields the most BMR units." Other text references to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update (1999-2006) as being "pending" in Volumes 1 and 2 are hereby amended to reflect the City’s adoption of this document in December 2003. Volume 1 (DEIR), Mitigation 6-1 (in Table 2.1 and in Section 6, Population Housing and Employment) is revised to read: "Mitigation 6-1. The applicant shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City that shall provide for the following items or equivalent provisions acceptable to the City and Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC): (1) -I-5 20 percent of the total project unit count shall be reserved as BMR units, consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housin~ Element Update (1999 2006) adopted in December 2003, "’~’~" "~+~ +~" ......... ,~ 20,~ ~o;a~+;,~;+ +~+~ ......~ ,,;~ ~ ~x~ ,,.~+~. (2)i i fo PAHC (City............... ~ ..................,prov s ons r or other entity) administration of the BMR units; and (3) provisions for the units to be rented to eligible households at BMR levels. In case the project ultimately results in the sale of the residential units as condominiums, the third provision shall also include details for the sale and administration of these BMR units. This measure would reduce this potential impact to less-than-sianificant levels. The second para~aph of this mitigation measure is hereby deleted. The following changes address and incorporate reference to the South E1 Camino Real Desi~a Guidelines (2002): Volume 1 (DEIR), Mitigation 7-2 (in Table 2.1 and in Section 7, Land Use), this measure is revised to read: "Mitigation 7-2. In conducting Site and Design Review, the City shall give special attention to the adequacy of proposed parking area visual screening along the pr ect’s E1 Camino Real frontage ......... ~ .......................... ~ ~,,;~; ..................... ........~,; .......~ ....~ ....~ ....~ .......... .....* ~+~e ......b)" ~*’~ po li cy, Th e pro i ect sit e plan should be revised to place most or all of the project paring behind the project buildings, or where this is not feasible, the City shall cenaiger require that the project final landscape desi~ to include additional substantial vegetation screenin~ beaveenanv retained surface parking (e.g., one tree every 25 feet an~or EXHIBIT A Minor Modifications, Revisions and Corrections to FEIR for Hyatt Rick©, ’s Hotel and Residential Project June 7, 2004 Page A-11 dual tree rows), a landscape berm treatment along E1 Camino Real, "-’~ and additional setback as necessary to accommodate the berm location between the street and parking area. Discretionary determination by the City that the project final desig-n is Consistent with E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines, the South E1 Camino Real Desia-n Guidelines, endorsed bv the City Architectural Review Board (June 6, 2002) and the land use and design standards set forth in PAMC Sections 16.48 and 18.28, will establish that the visual impacts of the project from E1 Camino Real have been reduced to an acceptable less-than- significant level." The following changes address and incorporate the September 9, 2002 memorandum from Dave Dockter, Planning Division Mana~ng Arborist regarding tree resources and tree protection: Volume 1 (DEIR), Section 15 (Biological Resources), page 15-3 (b) summarizing protected trees, is expanded to include the following text: "The City of Palo Alto Planning Division Managing Arborist (Dave Dockter) completed a review of all tree surveys prepared for environmental review. In addition, an independent survey of the site ~vas conducted by the Mana~n.~ Arbofist in summer 2002. The findings of this additional survey and a surrmaarv of City "regulated trees" is provided in a memorandum from Dave Dockter, dated September 9, 2002 (found in FEIR Appendix F). This memorandum contains a list of the regulated trees and tree ~oves that are reconamended for preservation and protection, consistent with the City of Palo Alto Techiaical Tree Manual, in order to reduce impacts to tree resources to less-than-si_mfificant levels." Volume 1 (DEIR), Mitigation 15-1 (in Table 2.1 and Section 15, Biological Resources), the first portion of this measure is revised to read: "Mitigation 15-1. The project site plan shall be revised to preserve and protect the "re~fiated trees" on the site, as identified and inventoried by the Plmmin~ Division Managing Arborist (September 9, 2002 memorandum, FEIR Appendix F). Prior to any gading and/or demolition activities--, e.g., as a condition of project gading permit and tree removal permit approval,..." All references to "Final EK~ Appendix B" noted in Mitigation 15-1 is hereby replaced with reference to FEIR Appendix F. Co Volume 1 (DEIR), Mitigation 15-2 (in Table 2.1 and Section 15, Biological Resources), the first portion of this measure is revised to read: "Mitigation 15-2. The project site plan shall be revised to preserve the "protected trees" on the site, as identified and inventoried by the Plannin2 Division EXHIBIT A Minor Modifications, Revisions and Corrections to FEIR for Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project June 7, 2004 Page A-I2 Managin~ Arborist (September 9, 2002 memorandum FEIR Appendix F). Prior to the preparation of the tree removal and replacement plan, . . ." do Volume 2 (Responses to Comments on DEIR), Contents table, page ii, number 4 entitled, FINAL EIR APPENDICES (see VOLUME 3 OF THE FINAL EIR) is replaced with the following to address the correct number, reference and order of appendices presented in FEIR Volume 3: "4. FINAL EIR APPENDICES (See VOLUME 3 of the Final EIR) FEIR Appendix A: ... (no change). FEIR Appendix B: Minutes of April 18, 2002 meetin~ of the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board FEIR Appendix C: Minutes of April 24, April 30. 2002 meetings of the City of Palo Alto Plamain~ and Transportation Cormnission FEIR Appendix ~g D: Letter and attactmaents from Lane Liroff re: Declaration Documenting Recent Overflow Parking Problems Associated with Hyatt Operation FEIR Appendix t) E: Additional EIR Appendices ¯Additional Letters Received During Public Scoping Process ¯Photogaphs by Local Residents of Hotel Related Off-site Parking Activity ¯Note Regarding Removal of Tables TA-12 and TA-20 from DEIR FEIR Appendix F: September 9, 2002 Memorandum from Dave Dockter, Pla~min~ Division Managing Arbofist" All references to Final EIR Appendix B" noted in Volume 2 is hereby replaced with reference to FEIR Appendix F. eo Volume 3 (Verbatim comments Memorandum from Dave Dockter, Planning Division Managing Arborist, dated September 9, 2002 is hereby added as FEIR Appendix F. DE]~R comment letter from Henry Lure, dated April 22, 2002 (attached) is hereby incorporated into FEIR Volulne 3 (verbatim written comments), comment letter number 71. EXHIBIT A Minor Modifications, Revisions and Corrections to FEIR for Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project June 7, 2004 Page A-I 3 Attachments: Memorandum from Dave Dockter, Planning Division Managing Arborist; September 9, 2002 Letter from Henry Lure; April 22, 2002 oo © 0 b~ © L;© 0 © © ..., o © _.J Proiect Description The proposed project is a redevelopment of the entire existing Hyatt Rickey’s site with for-sale residential buildings. The new buildings will include fifteen (15) two story, single-family detached residences along the Wilkie Way portion of the property. The front yards of these units will face Wilkie Way and vehicular access will be from the interior of the site to the individual driveways for these units via the existing access driveway on Wilkie Way. Throughout the rest of the site there will be ninety-five (95) row homes and seventy-five (75) town homes. These units will be a mix of two and three stories. Total density of the redeveloped site will be 11.7 units per acre. No residential units will be higher than thirty-five (35) feet. Thirty-two percent (32%) of the site is usable open space, exceeding Palo Alto Code RM-30 requirement for thirty percent (30%) of the site. The buildings along El Camino Real are set back twenty-five (25) feet. Along Charleston, the twenty-eight (28) foot landscape buffer is maintained. Along Wilkie Way, the thirty-five (35) foot landscape buffer is maintained. At other edges not along El Camino Real and not located within a landscape buffer, twenty (20) foot setbacks are maintained for three story buildings in response to daylight plane requirements. The architecture will bring Palo Alto to the forefront as an example of fine Bay Area contemporary architecture. The site will be driven by context and spatial considerations to provide the best living environment possible. The buildings are more continuous and streamlined along the site edges to address the urban context of El Camino Real and to give the project a better sense of enclosure. The interior of the site sees more segmented buildings forming clusters and courts which, in turn, form larger and more public courts that are linked to one another. The buildings are ordered in a way that creates a hierarchy of open spaces, from the park to the garden to the motor courts and alleys to the private lots of land. By allowing the existing trees to suggest opportunities for open spaces help to save the trees. All protected trees within the site will remain in the current location or be relocated elsewhere in the site as may be permitted pursuant to Palo Alto regulations. The landscape buffer along Wilkie Way and Charleston Road will remain in its existing condition. Vehicular access to the site will be from the two existing legal curb cuts -- one on El Camino Real .and one on Wilkie Way. The vehicular circulation within the site helps organize and unify the site plan. Vehicular circulation will include new, landscaped two-lane roads. Parking will be as required by the Palo Alto Code for resident and guest parking. Two (2) car garages will be located in attached garages for each unit. There are spaces for sixty-two (62) guest parking for 185 units, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code of thirty-three 3ercent (33%) of one hundred eighty-five (185) units (61.05 rounded up to 62). HYEQ\42175~574620.1 CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum 7 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:JUNE 21, 2004 CMR: 311:04 SUBJECT:4219 EL CAMINO REAL [99-EIA-9]: RECOMMENDATION TO CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) AND APPROVE THE MITIGATION MONITO~NG AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED HYATT RICKEY’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. The City Manager’s Report (CMR 311:04) for the Hyatt Rickey’s Development Project Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was previously distributed to the City Council on June 10, 2004. Since the publication and distribution of this CMR, several issues have surfaced, which require response. These issues are discussed and summarized as follows: Edits to Draft Resolution Recommending FEIR Certification Revisions and minor edits have been included in the draft resolution, which recommends certification of the FEIR (attached). These revisions and edits are recommended to address the following: a°To confirm that certification of the FEIR is for the revised project (May 2004) only. A third paragraph is recommended under Section 1A (page 1-1) to address this issue. The purpose of this additional paragraph is to make it clear that: 1) at this time, the City is taking action to certify the FEIR only, no action is being taken on merits of the revised project; and 2) FEIR certification is for the revised project (May 2004) only. Two letters have been submitted from attorneys representing the project sponsor (attached). These letters are intended to inform the City that the project sponsor understands that action on the FEIR is for the revised project only, and that this action can be taken separate from action on the pending planning applications for this revised project. b.To incorporate the findings of the recent TIRE Index Assessment completed for the revised project (May 2004). Revisions to the text describing Impact 8- CMR: 311:04 Page 1 of 3 4A (page 1-7) are recommended to summarize the conclusions of this assessment. Co There have been concerns raised that the FEIR did not adequately describe Wilkie Way as being a Class III designated bicycle route. However, the status of Wilkie Way and the Class III bicycle route designation is described on page 8-5 (Volume 1) of the FEIR. The text on this page notes that Wilkie Way is a signed Class III bicycle route with a sign at the Charleston Road intersection indicating ’bike route to Mountain View.’ Therefore, no further revisions are necessary to acknowledge this issue in the FEIR Further Clarification Regarding TIRE Assessment Prepared for Revised Project (May 2004) Page 2-150 of the FEIR (Volume 2) discusses the use of a more stri,ngent (lower) threshold for evaluating the potential local street traffic impacts on Wilkie Way. The method used to evaluate the potential impacts is called the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment Index (TIRE Index). The DEIR (Volume 1) correctly used a threshold of 0.2 to determine a significant impact because it was the standard in place when the Notice of Preparation was prepared for this project EIR (November 1999) and was the standard used in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan EIR. The City of Palo Alto has not officially changed this standard, although the possibility of this change has been discussed and a lower threshold of 0.1 was used in the preparation of EIRs for two other recent projects. As concluded in the FEIR, use of a TIRE index threshold of 0.2 for the revised project (May 2004) would not cause a significant local street traffic impact on Wilkie Way. For comparative purposes, an alternative mode of analysis of 0.1 was also used. Application of the more stringent TIRE index threshold of 0.1 for the revised project (May 2004) does not show a significant impact on Wilkie Way. A TIRE index assessment for the revised project (May 2004) using a threshold of 0.1 was completed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. on June 16, 2004. This assessment is attached. The assessment concludes that projected traffic from the revised project would be distributed between the main project access at E1 Camino Real and the Wilkie Way driveway. This distribution would produce up to 450 average daily trips at the Wilkie Way driveway (using a 40 and 44% distribution of the total daily trips). However, the driveway currently experiences approximately 200 average daily trips from the hotel use. Therefore, the net daily vehicle trip increase at this driveway would be 250 trips. This net increase would be below the 0.1 threshold, which is 380 trips. The TIRE index assessment prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has been reviewed by the City Transportation Division staff and while the conclusion remains that the net number of new trips is below the 0.1 threshold, the number arrived at by the Transportation Division is closer to the 380 threshold. CMR: ~11.04 Page 2 of 3 The Transportation Division staff estimates that 1147 average daily trips will be generated by the revised project (May 2004). This number is derived using the most recent edition (7th) of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. Applying a trip distribution percentage of 44% of the total number of trips using Wilkie Way results in 505 daily trips using the Wilkie Way entrance. When the 200 daily trips that currently use the Wilkie Way driveway are subtracted from the 505 daily trips, the number of new trips equals 305, which is below the 0.1 threshold of 380. S3~~~~incorporate~~nt~o t~_,he drlft. ~or of Planning and Community Environment The conclusion resulting from the updated TIRE index assessments has been resolution recommending FEIR certification. ES)II~Y HARRISON Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Revised Draft Resolution Letter from Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. addressing TIRE Index Assessment for Revised Project; June 16, 2004. Letter from Stephen Kostka, Bingham - McCutchen addressing FEIR certification; June 14, 2004. Letter from Robin Kennedy, Miller, Starr & Regalia addressing FEIR certification; June 15, 2004. CMR: 311:04 Page 3 of 3 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONM]KNTAL IMPACT REPORT (FINAL EIR)FOR THE REVISED HYATT RICKEY’S DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND MAKING FINDINGS THEREON PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION i. Background.The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A.Solit Interests Group, for Hyatt Equities, LLC ("Applicant") has made application to the City of Palo Alto ("City") for the Hyatt Rickey’s Development Project ("Project"). The initial project applications filed with the City in 1999 proposed the demolition of the existing hotel facilities on the 15.54-acre site and redevelopment of the site with a new 320-room hotel and 302 multipleUfamily residential dwelling units (apartments). The Project (initial project) was designed as a single development with the hotel and apartments sharing site access, some surface parking and landscaped grounds. The development approvals required for the Project included: i) Site and Design Review approval (required for a mixed residential and non-residential use project in the CS District); 2) a Conditional Use Permit (required for the proposed hotel floor area ratio, the two Charleston Road project driveways proposed within the L Combining District and surface parking as a principal use on one of the site parcels); and c) an exception from and reduction in the off-street parking standards required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance. In response to community concerns and in response to the environmental mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR and discussed in Section 3 below, in May 2004, the Applicant filed plans and materials proposing revisions to the Project (revised project), which present a significantly smaller residential development of the site with 185 residential dwelling units. No hotel land use is proposed with this revised project, and based on representations by the Applicant, it is assumed that the Applicant does not intend to proceed with the initial project application. The revised Project proposes similar land use concepts presented in FEIR Alternative 18.8 (All Residential Alternative) and similar site plan concepts of the initial Project and FEIR Alternatives 18.2, 18.3 and 18.4 (Hotel and Residential Alternatives). However, the revised Project is 040617 syn 8250072 NOT YET APPROVED significantly smaller in scale and size and with substantially lower densities than the initial Project and the FEIR Alternatives. Furthermore, the revised Project site plan proposes Project access from E1 Camino Real and Wilkie Way with no Project access provided from Charleston Road. As this revised Project is an all-residential development proposed on a site that is located within the CS-H (Service Commercial - Hotel Overlay) District, Major Architectural Revi@w approval is required in-lieu of the Site and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit applications filed in 1999 for the initial Project. A tentative subdivision map will also be required. Upon formal submittal, these applications will be processed and subject to future public hearings. Because the Applicant has filed plans and materials proposin~ revisions to the project (May 2004), the Fina! EIR is not certified for the oriqinal project application filed in 1999, but is certified under the California Environmental Qualitv Act only for the revised project (May 2004). In part, this certification is thus limited because the focus of both the Citv Council and the public in reviewinq the Final EIR is on the revised project (May 2004). In the event that the Applicant or anv other entitv sought at a later date to proceed with the oriqinal project application or anv other project substantially more dense than the revised project (Mav 2004), the Citv Council will then consider the certification of the Final EIR for that purpose and afford interested members of the public an opportunity to submit any additional information they believe may be pertinent to the question of whether the Final EIR is adequate for that project. B. The City as the lead agency for the Project has caused to be prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15132, the Final EIR consists of the following documents and records: "Volume i, Draft Environmental Impact Report, March 2002"; "Volume 2, Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and associated revisions to the DEIR, February 2003"; ~Volume 3, Verbatim Written Comments and Public Hearing Minutes, Coded to Correspond to the Summary Comments and Related Responses in Volume 2, February 2003"; ~Memorandum to City File No. 99-EIA-9, Minor Modifications, Revisions and Corrections to the Final EIR, June 7, 2004" (Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference), and the planning and other City records, minutes, and files constituting the record of proceedings. The Final EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq. The Final EIR is on file in the office of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, along with the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting 040617 syn 8250072 2 NOT YET APPROVED the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this reference. C. The initial Notice of Preparation was distributed on November i, 1999. A scoping meeting was held on November 15, 1999. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review between March 6, 2002 and April 24, 2002. The Planning and Transportation Commission held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on April 24, 2002, followed by Commission review and comment on the Draft EIR on Apri! 30, 2002. The ARB conducted a review of the Draft EIR on April 18, 2002. D. The City Council, in conjunction with this resolution, is also approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, whichprogram is designed to ensure compliance with Project changes and mitigation measures imposed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is described in detail in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is subject to revision, as needed, in light of the final, complete revised applications filed by the Applicant, and the City Council hereby delegates authority to the Director of the Department of Planning and Community Environment to make such changes in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (June 7, 2004) as are necessary to conform the program to the impacts of the final, complete revised application. E. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and record of proceedings, including but not limited to, testimony received by the Council during the public hearing on the Final EIR and responses by staff during these public hearing. SECTION 2. Certification. For Durpose of the revised Droject (May 2004) only, t~he City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the Final EIR, and all other matters deemed material and relevant before considering for taking action on the various applications related to the Project. The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City as lead agency. SECTION 3. Significant Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level. The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies and adequately assesses the potentially significant 040617 syn 8250072 NOT YET APPROVED environmental effects of the initial 1999 Project and recent revisions to the Project (May 2004) in regard to Land Use; Population, Housing and Employment; Visual Factors (Aesthetics); Transportation and Parking; Public Services and Utilities; Noise; Air Quality; Geology and Soils; Health and Safety (Hazardous Materials); Drainage and Water Quality; Biological Resources; and Cultural and Historic Resources. The City Council finds that, in response to each significant effect listed in this Section 3, all feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project through recent revisions (May 2004) and the application of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, as summarized below. This follows Public Resources Code section 21081(a) (I) which allows for findings stating that for each significant effect "changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment." Each of the Mitigation Measures summarized below is more fully described in the Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (attached Exhibit B). In what follows, the impacts and mitigation in the Final EIR are described from the standpoint of the initial project application and then from the standpoint of the revised Project (May 2004). In some cases, the revisions to the Project eliminate the impacts, reduce them to an insignificant level, or in effect implement the mitigation measures in the Final EIR. In other cases, the application of mitigation measures in the Final EIR will be necessary to reduce the impacts of the revised project to a less- than significant level, and will be required as conditions of approval. All of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR remain available for application to the revised project should further changes or refinements to the revised project necessitate their application to render an impact insignificant, and the Director of Planning and Community Environment has been delegated authority to make changes in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this purpose. A.Land Use Impact 5.1 concerns initial Project conflicts with the 35- foot height limit required for a mixed residential and nonresidential use development in the CS (Service Commercial). This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation 5-1, which requires that the Project either: i) comply with the 35-foot building height limit; or 2) that applications be filed to request approval of a Variance or a rezoning of the property to PC (Planned Community) District, which would permit building heights in excess of 35 feet. The revised 040617 syn 8250072 NOT YET APPROVED Project (May 2004) complies with the required 35-foot height limit, which would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 5.2 concerns land use compatibility impacts of the initial Project with the scale, density and height of residential development in the immediate, adjacent neighborhood. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation 5-2, which require changes in the initial Project design to improve compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood. The revised Project (May 2004) would implement this mitigation measure by proposing smaller scale buildings along the Charleston Road and Wilkie Way edges of the Project site. The smaller scale buildings are lower in height and density, which provides the required transition to and results in better land use compatibility with the adjacent residential neighborhood. Bo Population, Housing and Employment Impact 6-1 concerns initial Project compliance with the City affordable housing goals. The recently adopted Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update (2003) recommends a 20% Below Market Rate (BMR) residential unit component for projects developed on sites that are greater than five (5) acres in size. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation 6-1, which has been revised to reflect the current goals and policies of the Housing Element Update. The revised Project (May 2004) include a 20% BMR housing component, which would mitigate this impact. C o Visual Factors (Aesthetics) Impact 7-1 concerns the general, visual compatibility of the initial Project and its impact on the scale, density and height of residential development in the immediate, adjacent neighborhood. The initial Project would have substantially increase the intensity, mass and scale of development on the site. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation 7-1, which requires changes in the initial Project design to improve compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood. The revised Project (May 2004) would partially implement this mitigation measure by proposing smaller scale buildings along the Charleston Road and Wilkie Way edges of the Project site. The smaller scale buildings are lower in height and density, which provides the required transition to and visual compatibility with the adjacent residential neighborhood. However, additional revisions to the revised project are necessary so that the detached, single-family homes along the Wilkie Way frontage comply with the R-I District site development standards. 040617 syn 8250072 NOT YET APPROVED Impact 7-2 concerns the visual impacts associated with the amount and design of the Project’s surface parking, as viewed from E1 Camino Real. The initial Project was not designed to adequately site or screen this parking consistent with the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines and the South E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines, endorsed by the City Architectural Review Board in June 2002. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation 7-2, which would require changes in the Project design to comply with these design guidelines. The revised Project (May 2004) would implement this mitigation measure by deleting the hotel land use and surface parking lot and placing surface parking behind, the residential buildings that front E1 Camino Real. Transportation and Parking Impact 8-1 concerns initial Project impacts on Year 2010 operation at the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection. The initial Project would have caused this intersection to fall below acceptable levels of service during the peak commute hours. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by implementation of Mitigation 8-1, which would require either: i) the installation of an additional eastbound, right-turn lane from Charleston Road onto southbound Alma Street; or 2) by revising the size and design of the Project so that the additional traffic from the Project does not warrant this right-turn lane. The revised Project (May 2004) would implement this mitigation measure in that the size and scale of the residential density of the Project has been reduced by 40%, the hotel land use has been eliminated from the Project, and site access has been modified (access from E1 Camino Real and Wilkie Way only) so that the~ right-turn lane improvement is not warranted. Impact 8-1A concerns secondary initial Project impacts to bicyclists and the bicycle lanes along Charleston Road resulting from the implementation of the eastbound, right-turn lane at the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection, recommended in Mitigation 8-1. The installation of this right-turn lane would require relocation and/or elimination of the bicycle lanes. This secondary impact is unavoidable and cannot be reduced to a less-than- significant level. However, as noted above, the revised Project (May 2004) would eliminate the need to install a right-turn lane at this intersection. Therefore, the bicycle lanes would be retained and this secondary impact would be eliminated. Impact 8-1B concerns secondary initial Project impacts associated with the necessary right-of-way to implement Mitigation 8-1 (installation of the eastbound, right-turn lane at the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) and retain the existing bicycle lanes. Additional right-of-way would need to be 040617 syn 8250072 NOT YET APPROVED secured/purchased to accommodate the right-turn lane and bicycle lanes, as well as the relocation of the existing railroad crossing gates and signal standards. This secondary impact is unavoidable and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. However, as noted above, the revised Project (May 2004) would eliminate the need to install a right-turn lane at this intersection. Therefore, the securing of additional right-of-way would not be necessary and this secondary impact would be eliminated. Impact 8-2 concerns initial Project impacts at the Charleston Road/Wilkie Way intersection. The initial Project would have generated an increase in left-turn movements from westbound Charleston Road onto Wilkie Way to access the Wilkie Way driveway. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation 8-2, which requires changes in the signal phasing (split phase) at this intersection. Implementation of this mitigation measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 8-3 concerns initial Project impacts to the traffic flow and operation along Charleston Road, resulting from eastbound left-turn movements into the easterly, main Charleston Road driveway. This impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation 8-3, which requires the installation of a left-turn deceleration lane on the westbound Charleston Road approach to this driveway. However, the revised Project (May 2004) would eliminate this potential impact and this mitigation would not be required in that: i) the revised project proposes that no access driveways along the Charleston Road frontage; and 2) the recently adopted Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan (2004) recommends the installation of a center tree planting median at this location, which would prohibit left-turn movements at this location. Impact 8-4 concerns initial Project impacts on the traffic flow and operation along Charleston Road, resulting from outbound, left-turn movements from the main Charleston Road driveway onto westbound Charleston Road. This impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementing Mitigation 8-4, which requires the installation of a left-turn acceleration lane on westbound Charleston Road. However, the revised Project (May 2004) would eliminate this potential impact and this mitigation would not be required in that: i) the revised project proposes no access driveways along the Charleston Road frontage; and 2) the recently adopted Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan (2004) recommends the installation of a center tree planting median at this location, which would prohibit left-turn movements at this location. 040617 syn 8250~72 NOT YET APPROVED Impact 8-4A concerns the secondary impact that would result from potential diversion of initial Project traffic from the easterly, main Charleston Road driveway to the Wilkie Way driveway in the event a center median is installed along Charleston Road. The installation of a center median would prohibit all inbound and outbound left-turn movements at this Charleston Road driveway, which would cause the diversion. Implementation of Mitigation 8-4A would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring that project access onto Wilkie Way be prohibited or by reducing the number of residential units in the Project by 7.6%. The revised Project (May 2004) would reduce this secondary impact to a less-than-significant level in that: i) the residential density of the project has been reduced by up to 40%; and 2) the hotel land use component has been eliminated from the Project. It is noted that the FEIR analyzed Droject traffic to determine the potential for imDacts to the character of Wilkie Way~ as a local residential street. This impact was analyzed based on the comDletion of a Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) Index Assessment, which is summarized in the FEIR. The TIRE Index Assessment was prepared usinq a threshold of 0.2, consistent with the threshold used for the TIRE Index Assessment in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan EIR. The assessment found that the initial Project would not contribute the amount of traffic to Wilkie Way that would reach this 0.2 threshold and, would therefore not result in a siqnificant traffic impact. As the revised Project (May 2004) would result in fewer vehicle trips at this driveway, this conclusion would not chanqe. For comparative purDoses, another TIRE Index Assessment was comDleted in June 2004 to assess imDacts to Wilkie Way from the revised Project (May 2004). This comDarative assessment used a more strinqent threshold of 0.i and found that the revised Project (May 2004) would not contribute the amount ot traffic to Wilkie Way that would reach the more strinqent threshold of 0.I. Usinq this more strinqent threshold of 0.i, the revised Project (May 2004) would generate 305 net new daily triDs, which is less than the 0.i threshold of 380 triDs. As Dart of the Droject review, it will be recommended that the Wilkie Way driveway be limited to emerqency vehicle access only. Impact 8-5 concerns initial Project impacts to the traffic flow and operation along Charleston Road, resulting from outbound, left-turn movements from the westerly Charleston Road driveway onto westbound Charleston Road. Implementation of Mitigation 8-5 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by prohibiting left-turns from this driveway onto westbound Charleston Road. The revised Project (May 2004) would eliminate this westerly driveway; therefore, this potential impact would be eliminated. Impact 8-6 concerns inadequate emergency vehicle access at two locations on the Project site plan. Implementation of 040617 syn 8250072 NOT YET APPROVED Mitigation 8-6 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring that the Project site plan be revised to comply with the emergency vehicle access requirements of the Fire Department. The revised Project (May 2004) incorporate emergency vehicle access, which would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. Impact 8-7 concerns initial Project impacts to neighboring residential streets from inadequate hotel parking supply and the potential for parking overflow into the adjacent residential neighborhood. Implementation of Mitigation 8-7 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by either: i) revising the hotel parking so that it complies with the City’s off-street parking requirements; or 2) requiring the preparation and implementation of an on-going parking management program, which would monitor hotel event parking over time. The revised Project (May 2004) reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level in that: I) the hotel land use component has been eliminated from the Project; and 2) the site plan has been designed to comply with the City’s off-street parking standards and requirements. Impact 8-8 concerns initial Project impacts to bicycle safety at the westbound and northbound approaches to the E1 Camino Real/Charleston Road intersection. The initial Project would have generated additional bicycle trips, contributing to existing, bicycle safety deficiencies at this intersection. Implementation of Mitigation 8-8 would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level by requiring the Applicant to: i) dedicate additional right-of-way along the project frontage of E1 Camino Real and Charleston Road to permit the widening of the bicycle route; and 2) contribute a fair share cost to eliminate the existing ~pork chop" island on the northbound E1 Camino Real approach to this intersection. These measures will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 8-9 concerns impacts and damage to existing public roadways associated with initial Project construction. Implementation of Mitigation 8-9 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring that the Applicant prepare and comply with a Construction Logistics Plan, which would include a "before and after" pavement evaluation program. This measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. mo Public Services and Utilities Impact 9-1 concerns initial Project impacts on and the capacity of the existing, local sewer main. This impact concluded that the existing, 10-inch sewer main along E1 Camino Real cannot adequately accommodate the additional wastewater load generated by the Project. Implementation of Mitigation 9-1 would reduce this 040617 syn 8250072 9 NOT YET APPROVED impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the Applicant to install sewer main upgrades necessary to handle the anticipated peak flows prior to Project occupancy. This measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 9-2 concerns Project impacts on the existing, local water distribution system. This impact concluded that the residential component of the initial Project may require increased water distribution capacity and the construction of new water distribution facilities. Implementation of Mitigation 9-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the Applicant to analyze the water line infrastructure design and identify the improvements needed to serve the residential use portion of this Project. The analysis would be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit and needed improvements would be installed prior to Project occupancy. This measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 9-3 concerns initial Project impacts on the existing, local natural gas distribution system. This impact concluded that the existing, two-inch gas lines within the Charleston Road and Wilkie Way right-of-ways may not be adequate to accommodate the additional gas demand to serve the Project. In addition, this impact concludes that the Project would require an underground connection across E1 Camino Real, which would necessitate the approval of the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Implementation of Mitigation 9-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the Applicant to install the needed system upgrades prior to Project occupancy. This measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impacts 9-4 and 9-5 concern initial Project impacts on police services and cumulative demands for police service. These impact concluded that the Project would result in an increased demand for police service and would contribute to the cumulative citywide increases in demand for police services in the area. Implementation of Mitigation 9-4 would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level by: i) requiring the Applicant to pay the Public Safety Impact fee, should this fee be adopted by the City prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; or 2) requiring the City to monitor the rate of additional police calls per year associated with the Project area with additional services funded through the City’s General Fund. This measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 9-6 concerns inadequate Fire Department vehicle access at two locations on the initial Project site plan. Implementation of Mitigation 9-6 would reduce this impact to a 040617 syn 8250072 10 NOT YET APPROVED less-than-significant level by requiring that the Project site plan be revised to comply with the vehicle access requirements of the Fire Department. The revised Project (May 2004) has been designed to comply with the vehicle access requirements of the Fire Department; therefore, this impact would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. Impact 9-7 concerns inadequate fire flow for the initial Project. This impact concludes that the fire flows from two hydrants serving the Project site are not adequate to meet Uniform Fire Flow standards. Implementation of Mitigation 9-7 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring upgrades to the off-site water system prior to Project occupancy. This impact would still be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 9-8 concerns cumulative impacts associated with the Project on fire and emergency medical services. This impact concludes that the initial Project would result in an increased demand for services and would contribute to the cumulative citywide increases in demand for fire and medical emergency services in the area. Implementation of Mitigation 9-8 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by: i) requiring the Applicant to pay the Public Safety Impact fee should this fee be adopted by the City prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; or 2) requiring the Applicant to provide a fair share contribution toward the funding of new staff, vehicles and/or equipment; or 3) requiring the City to rely on cumulative contributions to the City’s General Fund to off-set these impacts. This impact would still be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure can be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 9-9 concerns solid waste disposal impacts associated with construction of the initial Project. Implementation of Mitigation 9-9 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the preparation of and compliance with a project-specific solid waste management and recycling plan. This impact would still be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 9-10 concerns initial Project impacts on park and recreation services. This impact concludes that the initial 1999 Project would generate the demand for a 1.42-acre neighborhood park to serve the park needs of the initial Project residents. Implementation of Mitigation 9-10 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the Applicant to pay the City-adopted Parks and Community Facilities Impact Fee. Further, this mitigation states that, in the event the Project is designed 040617 syn 8250072 11 NOT YET APPROVED to incorporate an on-site mini-park that is sufficient to serve the Project residents and satisfy the City’s neighborhood park requirements, a credit to this impact fee may be considered and approved by the City. This impact would still be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, the impact fee payment will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. F.Noise Impact i0-i concerns exposure of the initial Project hotel and residential components fronting E1 Camino Real and Charleston Road to noise levels exceeding the exterior noise level limits/standards established by the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the City Noise Ordinance and the State Building Code. Implementation of Mitigation i0-i would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring a pre-construction acoustical study to determine appropriate noise insulation measures and other Project design measures to maintain interior noise levels at or below the City and State limits/standards. This impact would still be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 10-2 concerns significant, temporary noise impacts associated with Project demolition and construction activities. Project demolition and construction has the potential to expose residences and sensitive noise receptors, including the Independent Living Center to noise levels in excess of 70 decibels. Implementation of Mitigation 10-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the preparation of and conformance with a construction logistics plan that would include, among others: i) limited hours of construction; 2) implementation of designated truck routes and construction staging areas; and 3) requirements for muffling construction equipment and vehicles. This impact would still be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. G.Air Quality Impact ii-i concerns significant, temporary air quality impacts associated with Project demolition and construction activities. Project demolition and construction has the potential to generate dust emissions including PMI0. Implementation of Mitigation ii-i would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the preparation of and conformance with a dust control plan that would include, among others: i) regular watering of and hydro-seeding earth-exposed areas during grading and construction; 2) installing dust proof chutes for loading construction debris onto trucks, as well as placing covers over 040617 syn 8250072 12 NOT YET APPROVED tuck trailers containing debris and earth material; and 3) installing windbreaks such as fencing or planting to keep dust from exiting the site. This plan would be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit. This impact would still be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Ho Geology and Soils Impact 12-1 concerns impacts to the Project associated with development on the site, which contains expansive soils. The expansive soils found on the Project site include a two- to four- foot thick layer of fill material that has variable consistency. Therefore, the Project structures have the potential to be exposed to differential ground surface settlement, which could damage structures, pavement and infrastructure. Implementation of Mitigation 12-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the preparation of and compliance with a site- specific, detailed geotechnical investigation, which addresses soil settlement and recommendations for soil re-compaction. This investigation would be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit. This impact would still be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as a condition on revised Project approval. Impact 12-2 concerns the Project exposure to strong seismic shaking in the event of a major earthquake. Given the expansive soils that are found on the Project site, seismic shaking could cause differential settlement, which could damage structures, pavement and infrastructure. Implementation of Mitigation 12-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the preparation of and compliance with a site-specific, detailed geotechnical investigation, which addresses soil settlement and recommendations for soil re-compaction. This investigation would be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit. This impact would still be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as a condition on revised Project approval. Health and Safety (Hazardous Materials) Impact 13-1 concerns the potential for worker exposure to hazardous substance/materials during Project demolition and construction. Specifically, a high concentration of Methyl tert- Butyl Ether (MTBE) was detected in a monitoring well located near the northwest corner of the Project site. Furthermore, the former presence of an estimated two underground storage tanks containing petroleum products has the potential for the contamination of soil and/or groundwater on the site. Implementation of Mitigation 13-1 040617 syn 8250072 13 NOT YET APPROVED would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring that a geophysical survey of the site be conducted prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit. This survey would confirm if all known, former underground storage tanks have been properly removed and that any contaminants have been remediated. This impact would still be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 13-2 concerns the potential for worker exposure to asbestos during Project demolition. Specifically, asbestos- containing materials may be present in existing building materials, pavement and site improvements that would be removed for construction of the Project. Implementation of Mitigation 13-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the preparation of and compliance with an Asbestos Abatement Plan. This Plan would include, among others: i) a requirement to coordinate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in the completing of a survey of all buildings and improvements to determine the presence and extent of asbestos; 2) identification of measures for handling asbestos-containing materials; and 3) identification of measures for disposal of such materials. This plan would be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit. This impact would still be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 13-3 concerns the potential for worker exposure to lead-based paints during Project demolition. Specifically, lead- based paints may be present in existing building materials and site improvements, which would be removed for construction of the Project. Implementation of Mitigation 13-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the preparation of a lead-based paint assessment, which would require, among others: i) collecting and sampling existing paint chips; and 2) identification of measures for paint remova! consistent with federal, state and local regulations. This assessment would be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit. This impact would still be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Jo Drainage and Water Quality Impact 14-1 concerns initial Project impacts to drainage patterns on adjacent properties and to capacity of the existing, downstream storm water facilities. While the initial Project was not expected to increase site runoff, construction of a new, more efficient drainage system for the initial Project could have potentially increased peak flow rates into the City drainage System 040617 syn 8250072 14 NOT YET APPROVED ZB, by eliminating on-site storage. Implementation of Mitigation 14-1 would either eliminate or reduce this potentia! impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the preparation of a hydrologic study and accompanying drainage calculations to demonstrate the amount of pre-construction and post-construction runoff. This study would be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit. This impact would still be significant with the revised Project. Therefore, this measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 14-2 concerns significant, temporary water quality impacts associated with site grading, demolition and construction. These Project activities would increase on-site soil erosion and potentially cause increased sedimentation and discharge of construction-related pollutants into the City storm water drainage system. Implementation of Mitigation 14-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the preparation of and compliance with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent erosion and the discharge of pollutants. The SWPPP would be prepared prior to the issuance of a grading and/or demolition permit.This measure will be required as a condition of Project approval. Impact 14-3 concerns the potential for significant, long- term water quality impacts associated with completion and operation of the Project. Specifically, the quality of storm water from the developed Project would not meet current standards for the discharge of non-point source urban pollutants. Implementation of Mitigation 14-2 (above) would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level by requiring the preparation of and compliance with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). This measure will be required as a condition of Project approval. Biological Resources Impact 15-1 concerns Project impacts to and loss of significant tree resources on the Project site. Specifically, the Project has the potential to remove up to 158 existing trees, which include large specimen trees and significant tree groves. Many of the trees found on the site are ’regulated trees,’ which are subject to the guidelines established City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual and City ordinance requirements for tree preservation and protection. This impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementing Mitigation 15-1, which requires: i) revisions to the Project site plan to preserve and protect many of the ’regulated trees,’ that have been identified and inventoried by the City Managing Arborist (outlined in FEIR Volume 3, Appendix F); and 2) the preparation of and compliance with a Tree Removal and Replacement Plan. The revised Project (May 2004) propose changes in the location of buildings and improvements 040617 syn 8250072 15 NOT YET APPROVED to preserve and protect some but not all of the ’regulated trees’ identified for preservation in FEIR Volume 3, Appendix F. Additional revisions to this revised project would be required to fully implement this measure and reduce this impact to a less-than significant level. The recommendation to prepare and submit a Tree Removal and Replacement Plan will be required as a condition of Project approval. Secondly, Impact 15-1 concerns Project impacts to potential nesting habitat for the Cooper’s Hawk, a special-status species. Implementation of Mitigation 15-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring that, prior to construction, an on-site survey of the site be conducted during the spring nesting season to determine the presence of Copper Hawk nests on the Project site. If present, measures such as the establishment of a buffer zone would be required during the nesting period. This measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 15-2 concerns Project impacts to and loss of ’protected trees’ found on the Project site. Specifically, the Project has the potential to remove up to nine (9), existing ’protected trees,’ which include large coast live oaks, valley oaks and redwoods. This impact would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level by implementing Mitigation 15-2, which requires: i) revisions to the Project site plan to preserve and protect the ’protected trees,’ that have been identified and inventoried by e City Managing Arborist (outlined in FEIR Volume 3, Appendix F); and 2) the preparation of and compliance with a Tree Removal and Replacement Plan. The revised Project (May 2004) propose changes in the location of buildings and improvements to preserve and protect the ’protected trees’ identified for preservation in FEIR Volume 3, Appendix F. The revised Project would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The recommendation to prepare and submit a Tree Removal and Replacement Plan will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 15-3 concerns significant, temporary impacts to existing, tree resources on the site as a result of grading and construction for the Project. This impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementing Mitigation 15-3, which requires that tree protection measures be installed prior to site grading or demolition. This measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Lo Cultural and Historic Resources Impact 16-1 concerns potential disturbance of unknown cultural resources. The Project could disturb, destroy or impact current unknown pre-historic and cultural resources. 040617 syn 8250072 16 NOT YET APPROVED Implementation of Mitigation 16-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring that a qualified archaeologist be present on site during the initial demolition and grading phases of the Project. The qualified archaeologist would monitor these activities and implement the appropriate measures in the event resources are encountered. This measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. SECTION 4. Significant Impacts, Which Cannot Be Fully Mitigated. The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies three (3) significant, secondary environmental effects of the Project with respect to Traffic and Parking Impacts. These significant, unavoidable impacts include: I)Secondary Impacts 8-1A (impacts to and loss of bicycle lanes at Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) and 8-1B (additional public right-of way needed at Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection), which result from implementation of Mitigation 8-1, requiring the installation of a right-turn lane on southbound Charleston Road at the Alma Street intersection; and 2)Secondary Impact 8-4A (increased traffic at and impacts to Wilkie Way driveway) resulting from implementation of Mitigation 8-4, requiring the installation of center median along Charleston Road, west of Wilkie Way. As discussed in Section 3 above, feasible changes and revisions have been made to the Project (May 2004), which either eliminate or lessen these secondary impacts to a less-than- significant level. As these impacts have been either eliminated or mitigated to a less-than-significant level, findings presenting a Statement of Overriding Considerations are not required for approva! of the revised Project (May 2004). SECTION 5. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the~,~j~t~--~-- ...... j~t the revised Pro ect ay 2004), which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, and that the City Council has evaluated the comparative merits of these alternatives, which are summarized below. In addition, the Final EIR describes a reasonable range of Project access alternatives for the purpose of evaluating impacts, which are described below, under sub-section J. The recent revisions to the Project (May 2004) reflect the environmentally superior alternative that achieves the Applicant’s current objectives. Ao Alternative 18.1 - No Development Alternative This alternative does not foreclose any site development at a later time but assumes maintenance of the status quo. This means 040617 syn 8250072 17 NOT YET APPROVED that, in addition to no development occurring, prevailing site conditions and the existing hotel-related uses (344-room facility) would continue to operate. This alternative would not meet the Applicant’s basic objectives of redeveloping the site with a mixed hotel and residential project. This alternative would not provide needed new housing units within the City, nor would it provide new Below Market Rate (BMR) housing units to further the City’s assisted housing needs. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update (1999-2006) identifies the subject property as a housing site, offering an opportunity for a minimum yield of 120 dwelling units. Furthermore, the Housing Element Update estimates that Palo Alto’s fair share of the regions unmet housing needs is 967 dwelling units. This project alternative would not recognize or implement the Housing Element Update. Lastly, the City has an obligation under State law to provide opportunities for development of units for low- and moderate-income households, which can be partially met by the BMR housing units that will be provided by the Project (discussed under Section 3, sub-section B, above). Bo Alternative 18.2 - Hotel/Residential with Lower Density and Park Alternative- City Option A This alternative assumes a hotel and residential development program that is similar to the initial 1999 Project with the same hotel size (320 rooms) but the residential use component would be reduced in size to 207 dwelling units and residential building heights not exceeding 35 feet. A neighborhood park/open space element is proposed at the northeast corner of the site. Shared access is proposed with the contiguous Elk’s Club property. The site plan and cross-sections for this alternative are shown on Exhibits 18.3 and 18.4 of the Draft EIR (FEIR Volume i). This alternative would reduce environmental impacts and the design and scale would be more compatible with the immediate neighborhood, an on-site park would be gained, the hotel land use would be retained and new housing units would be provided consistent with and achieving the goals of the Housing Element Update. However, the Secondary Impacts 8-1A and 8-1B (Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) would remain at a significant, unavoidable level. Secondary Impact 8-4A would be eliminated. C o Alternative 18.3 - Hotel/Residential with Lower Density Residential and Park - City Option B This alternative assumes a hotel and residential development program that is similar to the initial 1999 Project With the same hotel size (320 rooms) but the residential use 040617 syn 8250072 18 NOT YET APPROVED component would be reduced in size to 120 dwelling units and both hotel and residential building heights would not exceed 35 feet. A neighborhood park/open space element is proposed at the northeast corner of the site. Shared access is proposed with the contiguous Elk’s Club property. Further, all vehicular access to the site would be provided via E1 Camino Real with no access from either Charleston Road or Wilkie Way. The site plan and cross-sections for this alternative are shown on Exhibits 18.5 and 18.6 of the Draft EIR (FEIR Volume i). This alternative would reduce environmental impacts and the design and scale would be more compatible with the immediate neighborhood, an on-site park would be gained, the hotel land use would be retained and new housing units would be provided. However, while this alternative would reduce the significant, unavoidable Secondary Impacts 8-1A and 8-1B (Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) to a less-than-significant level and eliminate Secondary Impact 8-4A, it would yield the minimum number of residential units planned and recommended for this site in the Housing Element Update (minimum of 120 dwelling units). Do Alternative 18.4 - Hotel/Residential with Lower Density Residential and Park - Applicant’s Option This alternative was formulated by the Applicant’s architect as an alternative to the Alternatives 18.2 and 18.3. This alternative assumes a hotel and residential development similar to the initial 1999 Project with building heights of up to 50 feet and similar site access. This alternative increases the size of the hotel (365 rooms), reduces the size of the residential component (246 dwelling units), and includes a small neighborhood park/open space at the northeast corner of the site. The site plan and cross-sections for this alternative are shown in Exhibits 18.7 and 18.8 of the DEIR (FEIR Volume i). This alternative is basically the equivalent to the initial 1999 Project with some improved design elements. While some of the impacts identified for the Project would be reduced with this alternative, including a reduction in visual compatibility impacts along Charleston Road and Wilkie Way, Secondary Impacts 8-1A and 8- IB (Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) and Secondary Impact 8-4A (Charleston Road/Wilkie Way intersection) would remain at a significant, unavoidable level. The number of residential units would be consistent with and achieve the goals of the Housing Element Update. 040617 syn 8250072 19 NOT YET APPROVED mo Alternative 18.5 - Hotel/Residential Consistent with Zoning This alternative assumes a hotel and residential program that is similar in size, design and access to the initial 1999 Project but would be designed to meet the CS District height limit of 35 feet, which is the required building height limit for a mixed residential and nonresidential use projects. This alternative proposes a slightly smaller 293-room hotel and 272 residential dwelling units. The site plan and cross-sections for this alternative are shown in Exhibits 18.9 and 18.10 of the DEIR (FEIR Volume i). This alternative is basically the equivalent to the initial 1999 Project with some improved design elements. While some of the impacts identified for the Project would be reduced with this alternative, including a reduction in visual compatibility impacts along Charleston Road and Wilkie Way, the Secondary Impacts 8-1A and 8-1B (Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) and Secondary Impact 8-4A (Charleston Road/Wilkie Way intersection) would remain at a significant unavoidable level. The number of residential units would be consistent with and achieve the goals of the Housing Element Update. Fo Alternative 18.6 - Hotel and Residential on Separate Sites This alternative assumes redevelopment of the site with hotel and residential use, except that the property would be divided so that each land use component would be on separate sites. The hotel component would occupy the western 8.83-acre portion of the 15.84-acre property, housing a smaller hotel facility of 166 rooms. The residential component would occupy the eastern 7-acre portion of the 15.84-acre property proposing 164 residential units. Site access is similar to the initial 1999 Project, except that no access is proposed from Wilkie Way. The site plan and cross- sections for this alternative are shown on Exhibits 18.11 and 18.12 of the Draft EIR (FEIR Volume i). This alternative would reduce environmental impacts and the design and scale would be more compatible with the immediate neighborhood, the hotel land use would be retained and new housing units would be provided consistent with and achieving the goals of the Housing Element Update. The Secondary Impacts 8-1A and 8-1B (Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) and Secondary Impact 8- 4A (Wilkie Way traffic impacts) would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. 040617 syn 8250072 2O NOT YET APPROVED Alternative 18.7 - Hotel/Residential Alternative with Larger Hotel This alternative assumes a hotel and residential program similar to the initial 1999 Project, assuming a maximum building height of 50 feet, the same site access and site plan layout. The hotel component would be larger (375 rooms) and the residential component would be slightly smaller (281 dwelling units) than the initial 1999 Project. The site plan and cross-sections for this alternative are shown on Exhibits 18.13 and 18.14 of the Draft EIR (FEIR Volume I). This alternative is basically the equivalent to the initial 1999 Project in terms of project design, scale and resulting impacts. However, this alternative would result in a substantial increase in daily and peak hour trip generation from the initial 1999 Project, which includes increased impacts to intersections that would experience significant, unavoidable effects. While this alternative would meet and achieve the housing goals of the Housing Element Update, it would result in fewer units than the initial 1999 Project. Ho Alternative 18.8 - All Residential This alternative assumes a redevelopment of the site with an all-residential land use program. This alternative presents development of up to 475 apartment units, which would be consistent with the maximum permitted density of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Multiple-Family Residential land use designation (adopted for this site) and the density permitted under the current CS District zoning (30 dwelling units per acre). This alternative is designed to comply with the RM-30 District standards, which include a 35- foot building height limit. The site plan and cross-sections for this alternative are shown on Exhibits 18.15 and 18.16 of the Draft EIR (FEIR Volume I). This alternative would reduce environmental impacts and the scale would be more compatible with the immediate neighborhood. This alternative would yield significantly more residential units than the amount of housing anticipated in the recent Housing Element Update (minimum of 120 residential units). This alternative would result in a significant reduction in the amount of daily traffic currently being generated from the site (12% less than the existing hotel, so Secondary Impacts 8-1A and 8-1B (Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. However, Secondary Impact 8-4A (Wilkie Way traffic impacts) would remain at a significant, unavoidable level. Furthermore, the project density would not transition to lower densities along the property edges abutting the adjacent residential neighborhoods. 040617 syn 8250072 21 NOT YET APPROVED Alternative 18.9 - All Hotel This alternative assumes a redevelopment of the site with an all-hotel land use program. This alternative presents a hotel complex development with 500 rooms. This alternative is designed to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and current CS District zoning, which permits a maximum floor area ratio of 0.4. This alternative presents building heights of up to 35 feet. The site plan and cross-sections for this alternative are shown on Exhibits 18.17 and 18.18 of the Draft EIR (FEIR Volume i). This alternative, in part, would reduce environmental impacts and the scale would be more compatible with the immediate neighborhood. However, this alternative would yield no residential units, and therefore, would not meet the goals and policies of the Housing Element Update. While some of the traffic impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level, Secondary Impacts 8-1A and 8-1B (Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) and Secondary Impact 8-4A (Wilkie Way traffic impacts) would be remain at a significant, unavoidable level. J.Alternative 18.10 -Hotel/Residential Access Variations Four site access alternatives were assessed to determine the amount of resulting traffic impacts from the initial 1999 Project at three of the local intersections (El Camino Real/Charleston Road, Charleston Road/Wilkie Way and Charleston Road/Alma Street intersections). Access Alternative A presents access to the site via E1 Camino Real only (no Charleston Road or Wilkie Way access). Alternative B presents access to the site via E1 Camino Real and a Charleston Road access with a right-turn inbound/outbound only (no Wilkie Way access). Alternative C presents access to the site via E1 Camino Rea! (two driveways) and Charleston Road (two driveways) no access from Wilkie Way access0. Alternative D presents hotel access exclusively from E1 Camino Real (two driveways) and residential access exclusively from Charleston Road (one driveway). The Final EIR concludes that the four site access alternatives would result in varying impacts at the three local intersections. Alternative A is the environmentally superior access option, which reduces traffic impacts at these local intersections to a less-than-significant level, with the exception of a significant, AM peak hour impact at the E1 Camino Real/Charleston Road intersection. Alternative B would eliminate traffic impacts at the Charleston Road/Wilkie Way intersection but impacts at the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection (Secondary Impacts 8-1A and 8-1B) would remain at a significant, unavoidable 040617 syn 8250072 22 NOT YET APPROVED level, unless the Project is reduced in size. Alternatives C and D would reduce traffic impacts at the Charleston Road/El Camino Real and the Charleston Road/Wilkie Way intersections to a less-than- significant level; however, impacts at the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection (secondary impacts 8-1A and 8-1B) would remain at a significant, unavoidable level, unless the Project is reduced in size. In addition, the significant impacts associated with inbound and outbound left-turn movements at the Charleston Road driveway(s) would remain significant under access Alternatives C and D. SECTION 6. Impacts Found Not To Be Significant. The City finds that the Final EIR neither expressly identifies, nor contains any substantial evidence identifying, significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to any of the environmental impacts dismissed through the scoping process with "no" responses on the initial Environmental Assessment (contained in Volume 1 - Draft EIR, Appendix 22.1) and with respect to the potential impacts identified as not significant in Section 19.5 of FEIR Volume 1 (Draft EIR). SECTION 7. Substantial evidence supporting each and every finding made herein is contained in the Final EIR and in the record of proceedings on the Project. SECTION 8. The Council finds that there is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion that significant new information has been added to the Final EIR so as to warrant re-circulation of the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The City Council finds that the new information added to the Final EIR did not change the EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the City or the Applicant has declined to implement. None of the new information added to the Final EIR disclosed any new significant environmental impact which would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; or that any substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; or that a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts 040617 syn 8250072 23 NOT YET APPROVED of the project but the City or the Applicant has declined to implement them. This finding is based upon all the information presented in the Final EIR and record of proceedings. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment ATTACHED EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT A: Memorandum summarizing minor modifications, revisions and corrections to the Final EIR; June 7, 2004 (previously submitted to Council in Packet of June i0, 2004) EXHIBIT B:Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; June 7, 2004 (previously submitted to Council in Packet of June i0, 2004) 040617 syn 8250072 24 I-]EXA( ON TI ANSPOI TATION (ONSULTANTS, lNc. Attachment B MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Solit FROM: GaD’ Black Michetle Hunt DATE: June 16, 2004 SUBJECT:Analysis of Potential Impacts on Wilkie Way due to the Proposed Hyatt Rickey’s Development Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed our analysis of the potential impacts on Wilkie Way due to the currently proposed Hyatt Rickey’s development (185 homes). The analysis was conducted according to the City. ofPalo Alto’s guidelines using the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments (TIRE) System. The TIRE index is a numerical representation of a resident’s perception of the effect of street traffic on activities such as walking, cycling and playing, and on daily tasks such as maneuvering an automobile out of a residential driveway. Daily traffic volumes on Wilkie Way just south of Charleston Road under existing conditions and under year 2010 no-project conditions were obtained from the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project, dated March 2002. Under both scenarios, the DEIR concludes that the daily traffic volume on Willde Way corresponds to a TIRE index value of 3.2. As shown on the attached Table 2, the minimum daily volume increase to produce a 0.1 change in the TIRE index is 380 vehicles, while the minimum daily volume increase to produce a 0.2 change in the TIRE index is 800 vehicles. The Hyatt Rickey’s project, as currently proposed, is estimated to result in a net increase above existing traffic of approximately 200 daily vehicle trips on Wilkie Way. According to the trip generation and distribution in the DEIR, a project of 185 units, as currently proposed, would generate a total of about 400 daily trips on Wilkie Way. (The existing Hyatt Rickey:s Hotel generates about 200 daily trips on Wilkie Way.) Thus, the net impact of the revised project would be an addition of 200 daily vehicle trips on Willde Way. This increase of 200 daily vehicle trips would not produce a 0.1 change in the TIRE index. According to the significance criterion expressed in the DEIR, a TIRE index change of 0.2 would constitute a significant impact. Thus, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on this roadway segment. The attached tables provide a summary of the TIRE analysis results and T]2R_E defmitions. Other back~ound information on the analysis of the revised project is contained in our memo to you and the City dated May 19, 2004. 40 South Market Street, Suite 600 ¯ San Jose, California 95113 phone 408.971.6100 ¯ fax 408.971.6102 ¯ www.hextrans.corn Table 2 TIRE Index Table Existing Volume Range (Vehicles per Day)TIRE Index Minimum Daily Volume Increase to Produce a .1 Change in a .2 Change in the TIRE Index the TIRE Index 29-35 1.5 +6 36-44 1.6 +8 45-56 1.7 +10 57-70 1.8 +13 71-89 1.9 +17 90-110 2.0 +22 111-140 2.1 +29 141 -180 2.2 +40 181-220 2.3 +52 221-280 2.4 +65 281-350 2.5 +79 351-450 2.6 +97 451-560 2.7 +114 561-710 2.8 +140 711-890 2.9 +170 891-1,1 O0 3.0 +220 1,101-1,400 3.1 +290 1,401-1,800 3.2 +380 1,801-2,200 3.3 +500 2,201-2,800 3.4 +650 2,801-3,500 3.5 +825 3,501-4,500 3.6 +1,025 4,501-5,600 3.7 +1,250 5,601-7,1 O0 3.8 +1,500 7,101-8,900 3.9 +1,800 8,901-11,000 4.0 +2,300 11,001-14,000 4.1 +3,000 14,001-18,000 4.2 +4,000 18,001-22,000 4.3 +5,200 22,001-28,000 4.4 +6,600 28,001-35,000 4.5 +8,200 35,001-45,000 4.6 +10,000 45,001-56,000 4.7 +12,200 56,001-71,000 4.8 +14,800 71,001 -89,000 4.9 +18,000 +15 +20 +25 +32 +41 +52 +65 +80 +100 +125 +160 +205 +260 +330 +415 +520 +650 +800 +1,000 +1,300 +1 700 +2 200 +2 800 +3 500 +4 300 +5 300 +6 500 +8 000 +10,000 +13,000 +17,000 +22,000 +28,000 +35,000 +43,000 Source: Goodrich Traffic Group, based on curve shapes found in work by Donald Appleyard at the University of California at Berkeley and consider earlier thought Buchanan of the Ministry of Transport, England. BINGHAM McCUTCHEN Stephen L. Kostka Direct Phone: (925) 975-5312 Direct Fax: (925) 975-5390 stephen.kostka@bingham.com Attachment C Bingham McCutchen LLP Suite 210 1333 North California Blvd. PO Box V Walnut Creek, CA 94596-1270 925.937.8000 925.975.5390 fax bingham.corn Boston Hartford London Los Angeles New York Orange County San Francisco Silicon Valley Tokyo Walnut Creek Washington Mayor Bern Beecham and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 June 14, 2004 Dear Mayor Beecham and Members of the City Council: I have been asked by the project applicant, Hyatt Equities, LLC, to provide my opinion on the following issues: (1) whether the City of Palo Alto can certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Hyatt Rickey’s Hotel and Residential Project prior to the City’s determination whether to approve the project, or, in this case, prior to its determination whether to approve a revised proposal that is a mitigated version of a project alternative; and (2) whether the applicant’s revised proposal requesting that the City approve the mitigated project alternative triggers recirculation of the EIR. As explained below, CEQA authorizes the City, of Palo Alto to certify the EIR prior to determining whether to ~ant approvals for the mitigated project alternative. In addition, I have concluded, consistent with the findings in the report from City staff, that the applicant’s request that the City approve the proposed mitigated project alternative does not trigger a need to recirculate the EIR for a second round of public review and comment. The City’s staff report applies the correct CEQA principles to determine whether the EIR should be certified and whether recirculation of the EIR would be warranted. The staff report contains facts and analysis clearly showing that (1) the mitigated project alternative is within the scope of the project and alternatives studied in the EIR; (2) the mitigated project alternative will lessen the project’s environmental effects; and (3) the mitigated project alternative will not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental effects. Staff has prepared and presented an analysis that, in my opinion, supports the conclusion that the Hyatt Rickey’s EIR fulfills CEQA’s requirements as to the mitigated project alternative. Qualifications I have attached a statement outlining my qualifications as an expert regarding the legal application and interpretation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Among other publications, I am the co-author of the treatise Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act published by Continuing Education of the Bar. This treatise Mayor Bern Beecham and Members of the City Council June 14, 2004 Page 2 Bingham McCutchen LLP bingham.corn has been relied upon by courts throughout the State of California, including the California Supreme Court. I have advised numerous public agencies as well as private developers regarding CEQA compliance, and my practice is focused upon defending legal challenges to CEQA approvals in the superior courts and appellate courts. As examples, on behalf of Stanford University I worked with City staff on the EIR for the Stanford Sand Hill Road projects, and I served as co-counsel with counsel for the City in successfully defending the Cit3,’s EIR for those approvals in court. Recently, I represented the City of San Jose in the successful defense of the EIR for the Coyote Valley Research Park project. CEQA Authorizes The City To Certify The EIR Before Approvin~ The Proiect. The state CEQA Guidelines provide that "prior to approving a project" the lead agency shall certify that the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; the final Ell( was presented to the decision-making body and the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR; and the final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent jud~m-nent and analysis. Guidelines § 15090. The CEQA Guidelines further state that "after considering the Final EIR" the lead agency "may" consider whether or how to approve or carry out the project. Guidelines § 15092. Nothing in CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, or case law requires an agency to wait until it considers whether to approve a project before certifying an EIR. To the contrary, CEQA requires that all persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner. Public Resources Code § 21003(f). CEQA therefore authorizes the City to certify the EIR prior to its consideration whether to want development entitlements for the proposed mitigated project alternative. Because future discretionary decisions ~dll be made, certification of this EIR would, however, not be the last step in the CEQA process. In the future, when the City considers whether to want specific project approvals, it will have an opportunity at that time to determine whether any changes to the mitigated project alternative, additional details about the proposal, or other new information or changes in circumstances might require additional environmental review. The Applicant’s Request That The City Approve The Mitigated Proiect Alternative Does Not Tri~er Recirculation Of The EIR The most fundamental policy in CEQA is that public agencies "should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible, alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects" of the project. Public Resources Code § 21002. CEQA’s core provisions are designed to assist public agencies in identifying feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that will lessen a proposed project’s effects on the environment. Mayor Bern Beecham and Members of the City Council June 14, 2004 Page 3 Bingham McCutchen LLP bingharn.com Here, the project applicant has proposed that the City approve an alternative to the project designed to reduce all of the project’s significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. This type of proposal is exactly the sort that CEQA not only allows, but strongly encourages. In fact, the state CEQA Guidelines state that public agencies should urge applicants, "either before or after filing of an application, to revise projects to eliminate possible significant effects on the environment..." Guidelines § 15006(h) (emphasis added). I agee with the staff report’s conclusion that the applicant’s revised proposal requesting approval of a mitigated project alternative does not trigger recirculation of the EIR. CEQA discourages recirculation of an EIR. A second round of review and comment on an EIR is the exception, not the rule. In part, this is because "the purpose of CEQA is not to generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind." CEQA Guidelines § 15003(g). The CEQA Guidelines spell out the circumstances under which a change to a project or the identification of a project alternative will lrigger a second round of circulation of an EIR. According to Guideline 15088.5, a lead agency must recirculate an EIR only when %ignificant new information" is added to the EIR. The Guideline expressly states that new information is not "significant" unless the ElY, is changed in a way that deprives the public a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmemal effect, or when a feasible project alternative is identified that would avoid a substantial adverse environmental impact that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. Where, as here, staft~ s analysis of the mitigated project alternative does not identify, a new substantial adverse impact, and the project proponent actually requests that the City adopt the alternative, the revision to the proposal does not constitute "significant new information" as defined by CEQA, and recirculation of the EIR would not be triggered. The staff report presented to the Council applies the correct legal and analytical framework. The staff report identifies the project components and the components of the EIR’s other alternatives that are similar to the components of the mitigated project alternative. The staff report provides the information required by CEQA to determine whether the mitigated project alternative would result in a new significant impact, as well as whether the alternative would reduce the project’s significant adverse environmental effects compared to the initially proposed project. The Cit3;’s staff report is well reasoned, and it is legally sound. Finally, the City’s staff report also addresses the Charleston Corridor Study that City staff completed and presented to the City Council in January of this year. The City’s staff report demonstrates that the mitigated project alternative is consistent with the recommendations of the Charleston Corridor Study; therefore, the Charieston Corridor Study does not constitute "significant new information" triggering recirculation of the EIR. In CEQA terms, the Study does not demonstrate that a new or substantially more Mayor Bern Beecham and Members of the City Council June t4, 2004 Page 4 Bingham McCutchen LLP bingham.com severe impact than stated in the EIR will occur, and the Study does not identify new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would lessen the project’s environmental effects that the project proponents have declined to adopt. In sum, it is my opinion that the City can and should certify the EIR now before taking action on the applicant’s mitigated project alternative. Certification of the EIR at this time would be wholly consistent with the specific provisions of CEQA and would also fulfill the spirit and intent of the statute. Sincerely yours, 30164785_1 Stephen L. Kostka Bingham McCutchen LLP 1333 North California Blvd., Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 975-5312 Partner, Bingham McCutchen specializing in environmental and land use litigation, and counseling clients in environmental and land use matters. Education U.D.University of California, Berkeley, 1973 Editor-in-Chief, Califomia Law Review B.A.University of California, Santa Barbara, 1970 Political Science Publications S. Kostka & M. Zischke, Practice Under The California Environmental Quality Act (CEB 2003 ed.) S. Kostka, CEQA Guidebook (March 2002) Coauthor, The Califomia Environmental Quality Act: Recent Developments (CEB 1999) Coauthor, The California Environmental Quality Act: Critical Issues, Recent Developments, and Litigation Trends (CEB 1991 ) Courses Taught and Lectures Given Continuing Education of the Bar The California Environmental Quality Act - Recent Developments, New Case Law, Litigation Procedures ABAGTraining Center CEQA: An Advanced Seminar Winning CEQA Litigation and Bulletproofing EIRs Association of California Local Agency Commissions The California Enviommental Quality ActnWhy Should You Care? UC Berkeley Extension Advanced CEQA Seminar WC/30164637.1 Contra Costa County A CEQA Seminar for County Planners and Decisionmakers Western Surface Mining Conference Application of NEPA to Surface Mining Projects U.C. Davis CEQA and Economic Development California Appellate Research Attorneys Institute CEQA - Overview and Recent Developments BIA Select Conference on Industry Litigation Recent Developments in CEQA Litigation City of Chico CEQA Seminar for Planners, Environmental Professionals and Decisionmakers U.C. Santa Cruz Extension CEQA - Annual Law Review and Update Association of Bay Area Environmental Professionals CEQA Legislation and CEQA Reform Professional Affiliations Real Property Section, Zoning and Land Use Subsection, State Bar of California Litigation Section, State Bar of California Environmental Law Section, State Bar of California WC!30164637.1 MILLER STARR REGALIA& ROBIN B. KENNEDY 300 HAMILTON ROAD, THIRD FLOOR PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301 FACSIMILE (650) 462-1010 TELEPHONE (650) 463-7800 Attachment D RBK@MSANDR.COM June 15, 2004 VIA EMAIL Mr. Steve Emslie Director, Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: Hyatt Rickey’s EIR Certification Dear Steve: On behalf of Hyatt Rickey’ s, I write to provide clarification in connection with one concern that was brought to my attention by City Staff yesterday. As I understand it, that concern is that members of the community who support certification for the currently-proposed all-residential 185-unit project (the "Revised Project") worry that Hyatt might, following certification, revise the project yet again - either substantially increasing the density and!or reverting to the Initial Project (either, the "Original Project"). As described to me, these community members are troubled that their failure to submit for the administrative record their concerns regarding the adequacy of the EIR for such Original Project will forever foreclose their fight to raise these issues since the EIR will have been certified and the administrative record finalized. In an effort to provide reassurance, we offer the following: 1. My client has no intention of submitting an application for a Original Project, and has authorized me to state that it will not do so. 2.Even were Hyatt to submit an application for a Original Project, the Council would have to reconsider the certification of the EIR for that Original Project and, possibly, make new findings, which would provide a new opportunity for public comment. 3.The City Council is being asked to certify the EIR ~ for the Revised Project. Certification of the EIR for the Revised Project does not constitute and cannot be construed to constitute certification for any other project. 4.WALNUT CREEK 4.MSANDR.COM 4.PA LO ALTO Mr. Steve Emslie June 15, 2004 Page 2 4. Hyatt encourages any member of the public who desires to comment on the record before the Council votes on certification to do so. I hope this letter succeeds in putting this newly-articulated worry to rest. Very truly yours, MILLER, STARR & REGALIA Robin B. Kennedy Mark Solit (via email) Wynne Furth, Esq. (via email) Dan Sodergren, Esq. (via email) HYEQ~42175k579290.1