Letter to the City Council -- City of Folsom

 Attachment to City Council

HERITAGE PRESERVATION LEAGUE’S COMMENTS ON REMY, THOMAS, MOOSE AND MANLEY LETTER (PREPARED BY TIFFANY WRIGHT AND DATED MARCH 10, 2010) TO THE FOLSOM PLANNING COMMISSION

On January 25, 2010, Loretta Hettinger submitted a letter on behalf of the Heritage Preservation League of Folsom (“HPL”) critical of the current proposal for a hotel on Lot Y of Natoma Station.  We take this opportunity to set the record straight.  As you are well aware, the current proposal comes before the Planning Commission after years of working with the City.  In fact, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the previous version of the project.  After considering appeals of that approval, the City Council directed staff to work with the project applicant on just a single issue – tree preservation.  It was not an invitation to open up the entire project and conditions of approval for reconsideration.  In the time since the City Council took action, the applicant has worked with staff in an effort to preserve as many trees as possible, while dealing with a constrained site and the necessity of a feasible project design.  The results of that effort are discussed below.

Ms. Wright’s responses are reproduced below in black, followed by HPL’s assessments of each response’s adequacy in red:

The applicant’s attorney places weight on the Planning Commission’s previous approval and claims that only tree preservation is at issue.  The Planning Commission’s approval at that time was based on an incomplete application, per the chart on p. 4 of the 10-21-09 Planning Commission staff report.  The City’s attorney states that all design issues are under consideration.

          1.      HPL’s comments must be considered in the proper context.

According to its letter, HPL’s concern is with the project’s effect on the adjacent Natoma Ground-Sluice Mining site (the “Diggings site”).  It’s important to put that concern in the proper context.  In 1997, when the 4.9-acre Diggins site was dedicated to the City, all parties believed the concerns had been resolved.  Mayor Glenn Fait thanked Stefan Manolakas (the former owner of the Diggings site), and opined that it wouldn’t cost too much to construct a walkway, fencing and interpretive signs.  He invited volunteers and service groups to donate money and labor to improve the site and its accessibility.  (See September 12, 1997 letter, attached as Exhibit 1, and Sacramento Bee article, attached as Exhibit 23.)  Since that time, no progress has been made for this effort.

Neither Mayor Fait’s letter nor the applicant’s attorney addresses parking or access issues.  There is no space for parking on the Diggings site, and the parcel is landlocked.  Lack of progress is properly attributable to the fact that the Natoma Station approval requires Lot Y to provide parking for the Diggings, and Lot Y has lagged behind the rest of the Natoma Station development.  Eight years in the application process, this project is clearly not a priority to this developer.  By law, the City must act within required timelines, but there is no such constraint on the applicant.  It is obvious where the responsibility for delay lies.

In fact, in the 13 years since the site was dedicated, the City and HPL have had numerous opportunities to improve the Diggings site, including the opportunity to purchase Lot Y.  But the reality is that the site simply has not merited the input of resources by the City or any other volunteer group to improve the site.  Instead, the current owner of Lot Y is the only entity that has stepped up to volunteer improvements (on Lot Y) that will increase public access to the site.

At the time that Lot Y was created and reserved for six months for public acquisition, the City did not, or could not, purchase it.  HPL did not exist.  The merits of the site are determined by its listing in the City’s Historic Preservation Master Plan and the National Register of Historic Places, not an attorney’s opinion.  The word “volunteer” is questionable in regard to this owner’s role in providing improvements, but it is unquestionable that the community will volunteer to improve the site once the City puts out a call.

That does not mean, however, that somehow Lot Y is required to provide access to the Diggings site.  The HPL letter seems to presume that improving the Diggings site is Lot Y’s burden.  It’s not.  If the Diggings site is meant to benefit the entire City, the entire City should participate in sharing the burden for improving the Diggings site, not the owner of Lot Y, who was never the owner of the Diggings site.  Nevertheless, the project applicant is proposing to provide parking and access to the site that meets ADA requirements.

Per the Development Agreement, Lot Y is required to provide parking for the site, and parking requires access.  Furthermore, per their other attorney, Mr. Holderness, the owner of Lot Y claims to have donated two acres to the Diggings site.  If that claim is true, the owner bears some responsibility for causing the Diggings site to be a landlocked parcel and therefore has at least a moral obligation to participate in correcting that omission.  The City has been patient to a fault in awaiting the Lot Y owners’ timing of their project before seeking correction of the omission and requesting that Lot Y fulfill its obligation to provide parking for the Diggings site.

Furthermore, HPL’s concerns about lost economic opportunities from tourism are misplaced.  First, the commitments made by the applicant will enhance the access to the site.  Second, should the City approve the project, the hotel operator will have the opportunity to join Folsom’s hotel-based Business Improvement District.  By doing so, the hotel operator would contribute 2% above room rates and the transit occupancy tax for the funding of the Folsom Tourism Bureau.  So, in fact, approving the project will enhance economic opportunities related to tourism.

Financial contribution to a citywide tourism fund is beneficial to marketing efforts, but it does not mitigate the loss of economic value that is created by bringing a new tourist attraction into the marketing efforts.  There is no requirement that a hotel on this site must join the Business Improvement District, and since no hotel operator is involved, it is pure speculation that it would join.

As explained below, contrary to HPL’s assertions, the project represents the best design for satisfying the competing goals of the City and applicant within the constraints of the property.  It also satisfies all of the City’s requirements.

The applicant acknowledges that their goals are in competition with the City’s.  The City’s goals represent the efforts of many citizens and elected officials and no small expenditure of taxpayer dollars.  Applicants should align their goals with the City’s if they want to develop here.  This project can only satisfy the City’s requirements if the City’s requirements are lowered or removed.

          2.      The currently proposed project represents the best option to protect the Diggings site,
                   preserve trees and fulfill the Development Agreement.

Contrary to the assertions in the HPL letter, the current proposal represents the best feasible option for stewardship of the property.  The project is respectful of and will enhance the Diggings site.  The project will provide public access to the Diggings site with an ADA-compliant trail, an amenity that doesn’t currently exist.  Visitors to the site will also be able to utilize the hotel’s parking (which, as discussed below, meets City requirements and is more than adequate for the proposed project).

The project’s engineers and designers made changes in the site plan but none in the hotel size.  If it is true that only this hotel size is feasible for the owners, then they made a mistake in choosing this site for this hotel.  It is not the City’s responsibility to make them whole at the expense of the City standards that serve, as CC&R’s do in subdivisions, to protect the property values of all other existing and future development.  Just as CC&R’s are only as good as their enforcement, so the City standards are only effective if they’re upheld by the City Council.  Nothing in the Development Agreement requires the City to approve a hotel this size.  Avoiding additional trees is feasible for a project that does not overbuild the site the way this proposal does.
 

1. Balancing Tree Preservation with Project Goals

The project applicants have also worked with their engineers and planners to design a project that preserves as many trees as possible and will avoid adverse impacts to the integrity of the Diggings site.  In fact, the revised design reduces impervious surfaces by approximately 25%. (See Paving Calculations provided by Williams+Paddon, attached as Exhibit 3.)  This impressive reduction in impervious surface, however, does not significantly increase the number of trees that can be preserved on the site.  It does serve to demonstrate, however, that avoiding additional trees simply is not feasible.

The substantial reduction in impervious surfaces does come at a cost.  That cost is parking spaces.  As a result of preserving additional trees, the proposed parking has been reduced from 129 spaces to 97 spaces.  But those 97 spaces are more than adequate for the project.  The City’s Municipal Code requires one space per room for hotels, and therefore the 97 spaces meet the City’s standard for the 97-room hotel.  And it is expected to be more than adequate.  Those who evaluate the financial feasibility of hotel projects typically assume an occupancy rate of 75%, and that’s what was assumed in analyzing the finance of this project.  Assuming an occupancy rate of 75% for this project means the hotel will typically have 24 extra parking spaces.  Furthermore, the demand for hotel parking is not likely to conflict with the demand from visitors of the Diggings site as hotel visitors are likely to park at night while Diggings visitors will likely park during the day.  There is absolutely no support for HPL’s contention that the hotel could need up to 100 more spaces.  (HPL letter, p. 6.)

The applicant’s attorney, who prepared the Environmental Addendum that purports to evaluate the effects of a 109-room hotel, apparently continued to believe at the time of preparation of her letter, that the project proposes 97 rooms.  In fact, the project is proposing 109 rooms and asserting that 109 parking spaces are provided.  A careful count of the site plan reveals only 108 spaces.  Their claim that 24 spaces will be available for Diggings visitors is flawed.  The City’s parking standard already recognizes that hotels often operate at less than full occupancy by not requiring an additional amount of parking for hotel staff.  The applicant estimates a staff of 20 and asserts that many will use light rail.  Considering the half-mile distance, terrain, weather, and the limited hours of light rail operation, the assertion is optimistic. 

HPL’s assertion that an additional 100 spaces could be necessary was based on the City’s Zoning Code requirement for hotels:  one space per room plus amounts necessary for other facilities.  A conference facility of 3000 square feet was proposed.  The Code’s rate for such facilities is one space per 30 square feet.  Simple math supports the 100-space potential requirement.  At the March 17 Planning Commission hearing, the applicant asserted that they are removing a 4500-square-foot conference facility in order to include more hotel rooms and the fire equipment room.

Variables not controlled by the City at this time undermine this project’s assertion that parking needs of the Diggings site would be adequately served by a parking easement allowing Diggings visitors to use hotel parking.  The attorney’s assertion is true that Diggings visitors will likely park during the day.  The assertion that hotel visitors will likely park at night is only true if there is no conference facility.  Since there is no hotel operator committed to operate this hotel, there is no certainty regarding the internal configuration of the hotel: whether the number of rooms will be reduced in favor of re-establishing conference facilities.  If the City wishes to concur that a parking easement will adequately serve the Diggings site, the City needs to apply a condition that the parking needs of the Diggings site are a first priority for the City to consider in evaluating any building permit or other entitlement that would have the effect of increasing the daytime parking need of the hotel.  
 

2. Landscape Corridor

We would also like to take this opportunity to address comments from HPL regarding the need for a bike trail and a landscape corridor on Lot Y.  These comments are likely based on a discussion in the staff report for the October 24, 2009, Planning Commission meeting.  The applicant has provided to staff documents that conclusively demonstrate that no easement exists on Lot Y for a bike trail or landscaping.  A final map has been recorded for the Natoma Station property, and it does not include an easement on Lot Y.  According to the Subdivision Map Act, the recording of the final map finally and conclusively established that there is no easement on Lot Y, and staff cannot require an amendment to the final map.  (Gov. Code, §§ 66468, 66469, subd. (g).)  Further documentation in the record demonstrates that no landscape easement or bike trail was ever contemplated on Lot Y.

To disprove the assertion that no landscape easement or bike trail was ever contemplated on Lot Y, one need go no further than the project’s Development Agreement, which requires that Lot Y development be consistent with the Natoma Station Tentative Subdivision Map, which clearly delineates the landscape easement along both the Folsom Boulevard and U.S. 50 boundaries, on this property.  Whether the City accidentally or intentionally deleted it from the Final Map is irrelevant.  Each time the applicant requested extension of the Development Agreement, the Tentative Subdivision Map continued to be the standard cited, not the Final Map.  The applicants requested no change to this requirement although they could have.  Separate and apart from whether landscape easements are required through the Development Agreement, this project does not meet the requirements of the City’s parking standards, which call for perimeter landscaping of parking lots.  The purpose of perimeter landscaping is to screen the view of parking lots from adjacent roadways.  The 2-foot landscaping strip shown on this project is actually part of the parking space; since vehicles will overhang the space, it cannot be planted with trees and there is no space to meet the requirement for perimeter landscape screening.  If the project cannot meet the City’s parking standards on its site and fulfill its obligation to provide sufficient parking for the Diggings site, the inevitable conclusion is that the project is too large for the site.

The Development Agreement also requires consistency with the Natoma Station Design Guidelines.  The Guidelines clearly state on page 41, “Buildings and parking areas will be set back 15-30 feet from the road rights of way to provide adequate landscaping and relief from the street edge.  The landscape easement shall contain pedestrian/bicycle paths.  The wider easements shall be bermed to help screen parking lots.”  Additionally, page 9 of the Guidelines notes “The widths of the private landscape easement will vary between 15 and 100 feet (along Highway 50), in addition to the landscaped Highway 50 right of way.”

The Planning Commission’s interest in allowing this developer to fulfill his landscaping obligation offsite does not meet the objectives of either the Natoma Station Guidelines or the City’s requirement that parking lots be screened.  Placed at the base of a 13-foot retaining wall, on the light rail property, the landscaping concept (as shown in the illustrations provided under a cover letter dated April 15 to HPL and hand-delivered to the City on April 9), provides no screening of the parking lot or of the hotel structure.  If trees would even be permissible that close to light rail, they will of necessity be small varieties, not replacements of the towering oaks being removed.  They will have no potential to screen the parking lot or the hotel even at full maturity.

We also note that imposing such a buffer at this point has serious impacts to the feasibility of the project and would eliminate key benefits the City seeks – such as providing parking spaces and access to the Diggings site.  An exhibit prepared by Williams+Paddon shows that overlaying a 15-foot buffer along Folsom Boulevard results in the loss at least 48 parking spaces.  (See Williams+Paddon exhibit, attached as Exhibit 4.)  Alternatively, the hotel would have to be moved back resulting in the loss of more trees, although that might not even be feasible.

Alternatively a different type of project could be proposed.  If the applicant contends that the Natoma Station Design Guidelines require that a hotel be built on this site, then to meet this interpretation of the Guidelines a restaurant must also be built.  In fact, building a restaurant could better meet the City’s objective for allowing safe public view of the Diggings.  Properly designed, a restaurant dining area located above podium parking, would allow a wider segment of the public to view the Diggings from a safe vantage point while patronizing the restaurant. 

Commissioner Martell erred in telling the Planning Commission that Folsom’s existing hotels are running at capacity.  Data from the Chamber of Commerce indicate that they are instead running at the 70-75% capacity used to justify the City’s parking standard.  Folsom’s existing and approved-but-not-built hotels are aimed at the business traveler, with few amenities to attract tourists.  To avoid having a new hotel take business away from existing ones, it should have a different concept, such as a high-end boutique hotel, not simply more of the same.  A smaller hotel that can charge a higher rate brings in the same TOT dollars as a larger, cheaper one.  However, rather than requiring a hotel and/or a restaurant, a more reasonable approach is to encourage any of the many other uses permitted in the C-3 zone to be proposed on this site, since two hotels and several restaurants have already been built on adjacent property in the Natoma Station development.  A project meeting City standards could still meet Commissioner Martell’s objective of attracting Highway 50 traffic to stop in Folsom.
 

3. Aesthetics and the Diggings Site

We would also like to address comments about the scenic nature of the site and the project’s impacts on the site.  Attached to HPL’s letter was a drawing and cross section that HPL prepared.  Attached as Exhibit 5, is a comparison of HPL’s depiction versus a depiction generated by a computer model based on the actual site plan (produced by Paul Walsh of Williams+Paddon.)  As is apparent from the architect’s depiction, HPL’s depiction of the site is grossly inaccurate.

HPL’s rendering served the purpose of at last eliciting a rendering from this applicant.  Preliminary review of the renderings and photos indicates that the magnitude of change is exactly as damaging to the Scenic Corridor as anticipated.  The hotel is not nestled into the site as the City Council envisioned in 2005.  It depends for its screening almost exclusively on three existing trees either in the light rail right-of-way or right on the property line, with no planting of trees that will mitigate for trees removed.  The dominant view, even with the three trees, is of a four-story building of ordinary design as the entry to a not-ordinary city.  Though not intentional, the entry sign they propose is ironic, placing Folsom’s “Distinctive by Nature” slogan in front of nature that no longer will exist.  The hotel, retaining wall and landscaping, even at 15 years’ growth, provide a very urban vista, not consistent with maintaining Folsom Boulevard as a Scenic Corridor.

HPL also raises an issue of concern regarding potential damage to the Diggings site and the underground drainage tunnel.  A great deal of study by geotechnical experts confirms that any damage is unlikely.  Youngdahl Consulting Group studied the previous hotel proposal for Lot Y and reached this conclusion.  Youngdahl has revisited the site with the new site plans and has confirmed this opinion.  (See March 5, 2010 letter from David Sederquist and Martha McDonnell, attached as Exhibit 6.)  Moreover, years of construction in the region confirm the where-with-all of the tunnel.  Over the past decades, Highway 50, the widening of Folsom Boulevard, two light rail lines and the Larkspur Landing hotel have all been constructed with no detrimental effect on the Diggings or the tunnel.

The Youngdahl study, even updated, states that the potential for collapse “cannot be ruled out.”  The City should not have to pay for damage caused by this project’s construction.  A condition needs to clearly state the responsibility of this project to pay for restoration of the Diggings site to the same or better condition if there is damage.  If the applicant has confidence in the Youngdahl conclusions, they should have no objection to such a condition.  Contrary to the attorney’s assertion, there has been damage to the Diggings; the Youngdahl study states plainly that the tunnel beneath Lot Y is partially collapsed.

          3.      The proposed project is consistent with all City requirements.

The HPL letter mistakenly asserts that the proposed project is inconsistent with City requirements.  (See, p.5, et seq.)  None of the assertions are accurate.  Several of these topics are discussed above (tree preservation, parking, interaction with the Diggings site, the scenic corridor, open space and landscaping setback, the bicycle master plan and historic preservation).  We address the remaining subjects below.
 

·         The proposed project is inconsistent with the Natoma Station Design Guidelines. 

·         The proposed project is inconsistent with the Tentative Subdivision Map.

·         The proposed project is inconsistent with the Development Agreement. 

·         The proposed project is inconsistent with the City Council’s direction to save 44 trees. 

·         The proposed project is inconsistent with the City’s parking standards.  

·         The proposed project is inconsistent with the bicycle master plan. 

How many failed standards does it take to equal a failed project? 

a.       Environmental Review
 

While noting that the addendum is “technically defensible,” the letter cautions the city about public “doubts” about relying on the original EIR.  But CEQA is very clear regarding the limits on additional environmental review once an EIR has been prepared.  (Pub. Resources Code, § 21166.)  And the courts have emphasized that once an EIR has been prepared, the interests of finality are favored over the policy of encouraging further public comment.  Public Resources Code section 21166 was intended by the Legislature “to provide a balance created by the environmental review process and to accord a reasonable measure of finality and certainty to the results achieved.”  (Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1074.)  As the California Supreme Court has explained, once an EIR has been certified, Public Resources Code section 21167.2 mandates that the EIR be conclusively presumed valid unless a lawsuit has been brought to contest its validity.  (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California 1993) 6 Cal.45h 1112, 1130.)  “This presumption acts to preclude reopening the CEQA process even if the initial EIR is discovered to have been fundamentally inaccurate and misleading in the description of a significant effect or the severity of its consequences.(Ibid.)

It is important to keep these requirements in mind when considering HPL’s comments.  Thus, when HPL raises concerns about the public’s “doubts” about relying on the previous EIR, those alleged doubts have to be put in context.  CEQA itself limits the ability of the City to require more environmental review.  Furthermore, a concern that the Addendum was prepared by the developer’s attorney is unjustified.  It is common practice in California to have consultants for the applicant prepare the environmental document.  CEQA specifically recognizes that this is appropriate.  In this case, staff has reviewed the Addendum, and the Planning Commission will too before taking action on the application.  In fact, the Planning Commission will specifically find that the document reflects its “independent judgment” before considering the application.  (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.1, CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)

The City has gone above and beyond the requirements of CEQA in this case.  CEQA did not require the City to prepare and circulate the Initial Study that the Addendum is based on.  There is no requirement to prepare such a document, and certainly no requirement that the City provide an opportunity for public comment.  (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164.)  But the City did so in the interest of full disclosure and public participation.  And the document is more than adequate to support the City’s conclusion that an Addendum is appropriate in this case.

The attorney defends her work and her conclusions on a technical basis.  HPL and other professionals or courts may not agree with either her work or her technical conclusions.  Separate from the question of the EIR’s adequacy, it is clear that the Environmental Addendum is deficient in its analysis and conclusions.  As an example, how can a project rely on an EIR that repeatedly cites the Natoma Station Guidelines as mitigation measures and then fail to comply with the Guidelines?  HPL will continue to press for the City to have better information on which to evaluate this project. 
 

1. The Initial Study adequately analyzes the impacts of the project.

As discussed above, the currently proposed project is part of the bigger Natoma Station project for which an EIR has already been prepared.  And because the requirements for a Supplemental EIR or a Subsequent EIR were not triggered, no further environmental review was required.  (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162, 15164.)  Thus, although the Initial Study was not required, it nevertheless served the purpose of providing the public with information on how the impacts of the currently proposed project were analyzed in the previous EIR.  HPL’s letter criticizes the analysis of aesthetics, geology/cultural resources, noise and land use impacts.  The land use issue (providing a landscape corridor) is discussed above; the remaining issues are discussed below.  The HPL letter does not identify any failure of the CEQA process here.

Regarding land use, the City’s attorney does not agree with this letter’s assertion that no landscape strip is required.  Even if the landscape strip contemplated by the Planning Commission on the JPA light rail right-of-way can be acquired, it does not appear to meet the screening goals of either the Natoma Station Guidelines or the City’s parking standards.  It is certain that tree planting would be very restricted, if possible at all, due to the strip’s proximity to light rail.  Additionally, putting landscaping in that strip instead of a bicycle trail would prevent constructing a vital connecting link in a bicycle trail system the City has spent millions of dollars to build.  The fact that the applicant refuses to accommodate the trail on Lot Y does not remove the need for the trail.  Nor does it remove the provisions of the Natoma Station Design Guidelines that show a grade-separated bicycle and pedestrian path on the Folsom Boulevard frontage, a trail reiterated in the subsequently adopted Bicycle Master Plan.  This trail segment is planned to link with the County’s Alder Creek trail, connecting Folsom with the Easton project, a very large mixed-use development on former Aerojet property. 

The applicant’s attorney is also silent on the land use issue regarding the landscaping corridor required by the Tentative Subdivision Map along U.S. 50.  It is no less required than the Folsom Boulevard one.

It appears the discussion following the aesthetics analysis was inadvertently deleted from the version of the Initial Study that was circulated for public review.  Nevertheless, CEQA doesn’t require an analysis prior to adopting an addendum and a review of the current project and the EIR supports the determination that no further environmental review is required. 

If the discussion following the aesthetics analysis was inadvertently deleted from the version of the Initial Study that was circulated for public review, where is it?  How can the City Council make findings that the environmental review is complete and adequate if part of it is deleted?  Instead of providing the missing part, the attorney argues it isn’t necessary.  The time for objecting to providing a full and fair discussion of all issues in an Addendum was before the firm agreed to prepare the Addendum.  Omission of analysis of aesthetic impacts on a scenic corridor is a glaring omission. 

With the approval of the Final EIR for the Natoma Station Residential and Commercial Development project, the Folsom City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations specific to the loss of oak trees that would occur as a result of the implementation of the proposed project, including the development of this specific project site (Lot Y).  No circumstances specific to the oak trees on Lot Y have changed since the adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 

This letter’s interpretation of the Statement of Overriding Considerations stretches credibility when taken in the proper context of the entire project EIR.  Her statement that no circumstances specific to the oak trees on Lot Y have changed since the adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations proves a different point than she intended:  it proves the point that this project’s design, which requires mass grading and loss of most of the “mature oaks” on the site is inconsistent with the adopted EIR, whose mitigation measures rely on the Natoma Station Design Guidelines to be carried out.  The following quotes from the Guidelines further underscore the inconsistency of this project with the EIR:
 

·         “The overall grading concept involves creating buildable pads while retaining the underlying integrity of the landform.” 

·         “Mass grading will be avoided as much as possible in order to preserve the heritage oak trees and other special natural features in the areas which have not yet been graded.” 

·         “The irregular growth of tree cover around the periphery of Natoma Station, particularly along Folsom Boulevard and the Highway 50 right-of-way, will be maintained.”  A letter from River West, the Natoma Station developer, which is included in the FEIR, gives an example of the level of tree loss they considered appropriate:  4 out of 44. 
 

When the City’s arborist identifies which trees are being preserved (information normally provided by an applicant), HPL will provide additional comments.

Regarding cultural resources and geological impacts, the project currently proposed is substantially similar to the project for which the original Youngdahl study and the Windmiller report were prepared.  Nevertheless, the project applicant requested that Youngdahl update its previous analysis.  In its updated analysis, Youngdahl concludes that the potential for collapse is unlikely.  (See March 5, 2010, letter from David Sederquist and Martha McDonell, attached as Exhibit 6.)

The attorney fails to mention, either in this letter or in the Environmental Addendum, the “hanging ditch” feature of the Diggings which Windmiller identified as extending onto Lot Y.  Will it be preserved?  There is also no explanation in either the letter or the Addendum of whether the lot line adjustment Mr. Windmiller was evaluating in 2005 is relevant to the current proposal.  Accuracy of project boundaries presented is critical in evaluating the current proposal.

The attorney also fails to mention HPL’s identification of an impact that was not analyzed in the Addendum, the impact on public services of the City’s ownership of the Chinese Diggings site.  This impact could not have been foreseen at the time the EIR was adopted because the City did not anticipate owning the site, but it is important now for the City to know how this project will affect the City’s ability to make the site available to the public and scholars.  Can the limited access and parking and the token viewing site that only shows the trenches most at risk for collapse during this project’s construction actually work?  If Councilmember Morin pursues his ideas about making historic sites privately owned, what entity would accept such a constrained site?  Unless Lot Y is required to live up to its Natoma Station Design Guidelines responsibilities, Folsom will be left with all the responsibilities of a National Register site with few of the benefits.  The environmental review of this project is inadequate if public service impacts are not addressed.   

Regarding noise, nothing in CEQA requires the noise analysis to be updated with actual measurements of the light rail noise.  The Initial Study was supported by a well-reasoned expert opinion that the light rail noise levels will not significantly affect the project design.

HPL is grateful that the City concurs with our concerns regarding the need for actual noise data.

HPL’s comments ignore CEQA’s requirements for supplemental environmental review.  The Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document in this case and HPL has failed to identify any defects.

Multiple defects are cited above, both in the adequacy of the environmental documents and in this project’s compliance with them and with City standards.
 

b.      The hotel does not exceed the height requirement.

HPL asserts that portions of the hotel exceed the City’s building height limit.  HPL is simply wrong on this count.  Jack Paddon, the architect for the project, has confirmed that every aspect of the project is within the City’s height limitations.
 

c.       The project includes adequate fire protection.

The Folsom Fire Department has reviewed the project.  In December 2007, the Fire Department proposed alternate materials and methods to mitigate the lack of access to the rear of the hotel.  (See December 2007 letter, attached as Exhibit 7.)  Those comments have been incorporated into the project (Condition #60).  Thus, concerns regarding fire safety have been adequately addressed.

Note the statement in the Fire Department’s letter referring to a “substandard” roadway.
 

d.      Hillside Ordinance

Staff has never raised a concern about the project’s compliance with the Hillside Ordinance.  We do not believe the project is within one of the Hillside Areas to which the standards of the Ordinance apply.  Nevertheless, we have examined those standards and believe the project complies with all of those that are even relevant.

Whether staff has raised the question or not, HPL has raised the question.  Is the City’s Hillside Ordinance applicable to this property?  If it is not applicable, please explain why.  If it is applicable, does this project comply?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letter to the Planning Commission City of Folsom
Re:  Lot Y hotel proposal, PN02-569