Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 167-07City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING & COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT DATE:APRIL 3, 2007 CMR: 167:07 SUBJECT: CONSIDER: 1)ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL OR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, 2) ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES AMENDING ZONE DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS FROM MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-15, RM-30, RM-40) TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL (CS) OR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN) FOR PROPERTIES AT 4329 EL CAMINO REAL, 3981 EL CAMINO REAL, 725 SAN ANTONIO AVENUE, AND 4151 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD; AND 3) APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS FOR EACH OF THE SITES. This item was continued due to inadequate notification to area residents from March 12, 2007. The Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment public hearing was advertised on Palo Alto Weekly on March 21, 2007. All area residents within 600feet radius of the proposed rezoning sites, property owners and other interested parties were notified of the April 3, 2007 hearing date by mail on March 16, 2007. City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COLrNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:MARCH 12, 2007 CMR: 167:07 SUBJECT:CONSIDER:1)ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL OR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, 2)ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES AMENDING ZONE DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS FROM MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM- 15, RM-30, RM-40) TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL (CS) OR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN) FOR PROPERTIES AT 4329 EL CAMINO REAL, 3981 EL CAMINO REAL, 725 SAN ANTONIO AVENUE, AND 4151 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD; AND 3) APPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS FOR EACH OF THE SITES. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend the City Council: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration for 4329 E1 Camino Real, redesignate and rezone the site to Service Commercial on 1.67 acres, retaining the Multiple Family Residential/RM-15 land use designation and zoning on 0.5 acres and initiate traffic calming studies for the Monroe Street/El Camino Real intersection; 2.Adopt the Negative Declaration for 3981 E1 Camino Real and redesignate and rezone the site to Service Commercial/CS; 31 Adopt the Negative Declaration for 725 San Antonio Avenue and redesignate and rezone the site to Neighborhood Commercial/CN; and 4. Retain designation and zoning of Multiple Family Residential/RM-15 for 4151 Middlefield Road. BACKGROUND On August 7, 2006, the City Council directed staff to initiate a rezoning process for four sites located at 4329 El Camino Real, 3981 E1 Camino Real, 725 San Antonio Road and 4151 Middlefield Road, currently zoned and planned for multiple family residential uses but developed with existing commercial uses. The City Council’s direction was intended to preserve these sites for commercial development and eliminate the potential for future site redevelopment with stand-alone housing. On October 26, staff conducted a community meeting in the Ventura neighborhood to inform the community of the potential land use changes and rezonings and to solicit community input. Staff met independently with property owners of all four sites and with CMR: 167:07 ~Page 1 of 6 representatives from the Monroe Park Neighborhood Association to explain the Council direction, the possible land use changes and rezonings of the sites and the development review process for any redevelopment of the sites. COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the Comprehensive Plan changes and rezoning proposals for the four sites at two meetings, held on December 6, 2006 and January 10, 2007. In its deliberation for each of the sites, staff requested that the Commission determine: 1) if the site should be redesignated/rezoned to commercial use; 2) if the site should be designated Commercial Service or Neighborhood Commercial; and 3) if use of the property should be restricted to commercial/retail development or if mixed commercial/residential use should be allowed. The Commission’s discussion and recommendations for each site are summarized below. The minutes for both meetings are attached (Attachment E). 4329 EL CAMINO REAL (PALO ALTO BOWL) The Palo Alto Bowl site was discussed at both the December 6, 2006 and January 10, 2007 Planning and Transportation Commission meetings. At both meetings, Monroe Park Neighborhood Association residents near the property expressed concerns regarding redevelopment of the site with either a big box retail use or mixed use. The main concerns raised by the neighborhood were that big box retail would be out of scale with the existing neighborhood and would create additional traffic and congestion and that a mixed use development would result in further students in the Los Altos School District as well as create additional area traffic and congestion. Although many residents supported a less intensive Neighborhood Commercial use of the property, the Commission recommended redesignating and rezoning the RM-30 portion of the property to Service Commercial (CS) since the Service Commercial use would be consistent with adjacent properties fronting E1 Camino Real. This rezoning would also enable parcel consolidation with the adjacent motel site and potential redevelopment of a larger site for retail or mixed use development. The Commission was particularly interested in hotel use on the expanded site and considered the site as having good potential for future hotel development that could result in significant additional tax revenue for the City. The Commission also recommended retaining the Multiple Family Residential/RM-15 on the rear portion of the site adjacent to existing single family development along the rear of the site as a buffer between any commercial development and the single family area. Given the public testimony regarding the existing concerns for safety of students walking to and from area schools, the Commission also recommended that the Council initiate traffic calming studies for the Monroe/El Camino intersection since the street is designated on the City’s Safe Routes to School network. 3981 EL CAMINO REAL (MAY FLOWER MOTEL) At its December 6, 2006 meeting, the Commission discussed the potential for changing the land use and zoning of the Mayflower Motel site. The Commission supported the staff recommendation to change the land use designation from Multiple Family Residential to Service Commercial and rezone the site from RM-30 and RM-40 to CS. The Commission considered the Service Commercial use preferable to Neighborhood Commercial for the site because of the prevailing development pattern of commercial properties along E1 Camino in this area. Given the site’s limitations due to parcel configuration and limited access, the Commission did not CMR: 167:07 Page 2 of 6 support restricting uses on the site to retail only. The Mayflower Motel owner supported the land use change and rezoning and indicated that the change would provide flexibility for future redevelopment and enable the site to be expanded and remodeled as a motel use or redeveloped as either a mixed use or retail development. The Commission considered the site a good location for a mixed use project or hotel. The Service Commercial land use provides options for development that could improve the area and benefit the community. 725 SAN ANTONIO AVENUE (SUMMERWINDS NURSERY) On December 6; 2006, the Commission discussed the potential for changing the land use and zoning of the Summerwinds Nursery site located at 725 San Antonio Avenue. The Commission recommended that the site be redesignated in the Comprehensive Plan from Multiple Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial and rezoned from RM-15 to CN. The property owner strongly objected to any change in land use or zoning on the site, indicating that her family’s vision for the property is development that provides multiple family residences without retail uses similar to the adjacent Greenhouse development. The property owner also indicated that the current zoning for the site provides housing that will contribute to satisfying the City’s State- imposed Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The Commission determined that retail use alone on the site was inappropriate given the adjacent Greenhouse development and the size and configuration of the site. The Commission recognized that the site should provide a buffer between the higher density housing at the Greenhouses and the commercial uses on San Antonio Avenue. The Commission also considered retaining the site with its current zoning pending a thorough evaluation of the San Antonio Avenue corridor through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process or recommending a change of the land use to Neighborhood Commercial. Given the two to three year timeframe for completion of the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission decided that changing the land use/zoning now would preclude possible redevelopment of the site for a stand alone housing project during that three year period. The Commission recommended the Neighborhood commercial use since it provides an appropriate transition from residential and office uses along Middlefield and at the Greenhouses to the more intense commercial uses along San Antonio Avenue. The Commission concluded that the Neighborhood Commercial use also accommodates the owner’s vision for housing in conjunction with the retail use. 4151 MIDDLEFIELDROAD (OFFICE BUILDING) The Commission discussed the 4151 Middlefield Road site on December 6, 2006. The Commission recommended that the 4151 Middlefield office site remain at its current Multiple Family Residential use and zoning of RM-15 at this time and deferred the potential rezoning of this site for consideration in the context of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Commission discussed the poss~ibility of use of the site for neighborhood retail to serve the future Campus for Jewish Life project residents but considered that since the parcel does not have the same arterial frontage as the other three sites under consideration for redesignation and rezoning, a more comprehensive evaluation of the site should be undertaken. Staff acknowledged that it was unclear that the parcel was separate from the adjacent Summerwinds Nursery site fronting San Antonio Avenue, when the Council referred the site for rezoning initiation. After considerable discussion, the Commission decided that retaining the Multiple Family Residential/RM-15 designation and zoning until a more comprehensive study can be completed CMR: 167:07 Page 3 of 6 for the area retains, in the interim, the existing buffer between the single family residential on Middlefield Road and the Service Commercial uses on San Antonio Avenue. RETAIL ONLY ON COMMERCIAL SITES The Council’s discussion on August 7, 2006 included direction to evaluate the potential for commercial/retail zoning on the four sites without allowing for mixed use (i.e., no housing component). During its discussion of the four rezonings, the Commission concurred with staff and did not favor an exclusively commercial zoning on the properties for the following reasons: 1.The sites tend to be long and narrow, and commercial development may only be feasible on the front portion of the site close to the major street frontage. 2.Currently CN or CS sites cannot be developed as stand-alone residential. The recent amendments to the zoning code now require a minimum of a 0,15 FAR for commercial/retail use in order to allow any residential development. This is the amount of retail development that is typically attainable if surface parking is used. In many cases, the addition of residential development can "subsidize" more intense commercial use as it may justify below-grade or structured parking. 3.Any mixed use development with more than four residential units would require Site and Design Review by the ARB, Planning and Transportation Commission, and City Council, so extensive scrutiny is provided to ensure the appropriate amount and location of commercial and residential uses. 4.To further restrict the zoning would conflict with the Comprehensive Plan designations for commercial uses, which indicate that some residential uses are permitted (allowing mixed use development). Also, new zoning categories would probably be required to avoid "spot zoning". 5. The conversion of residentially-designated and zoned sites to prohibit residential use entirely may present constraints for the update of the City’s Housing Element by restricting sites that could accommodate a substantial number of potential housing units. The Commission and staff have, therefore, recommended that where Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations are modified to Neighborhood Commercial or Service Commercial uses, mixed retail and residential use should be allowed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Initial Study (IS) checklist was prepared for each of the four sites, and Negative Declarations prepared since each EIA/IS concluded that no potentially significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed land use changes/rezonings of the properties. The Negative Declarations were available for public review from November 17, 2006 through December 5, 2006, and are attached to this staff report (Attachment F). RESOURCE IMPACT The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezonings recommended in this report are expected to have a positive resource impact on the City once the sites are developed. For those sites whose land use designation would change from multiple residential to service commercial, the City can expect additional transient occupancy or sales taxes. Maintaining commercial and CMR: 167:07 Page 4 of 6 retail opportunities on a site currently generating such revenues maintains the City’s economic base and the opportunity to generate additional revenues. Allowing for construction of a new hotel on the Mayflower Motel site, for example, provides higher revenue prospects for the City. The amount of revenue generation would be dependent upon the intensity and type of retail development. POLICY IMPLICATION The proposed land use changes are consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies that support mixed use development and economic development. Policy L-16 -Encourages siting neighborhood-serving retail in residential areas Policy L-9 - Encourages creation of opportunities for new mixed use development Policy H-3 - Supports re-designation of land for housing or mixed uses. Policy H-4 - Encourages mixed use projects to promote diversity and neighborhood vitality Policy B- 17 - Encourages owners to upgrade commercial properties Policy B-25 - Encourages strengthening of commercial vitality of businesses along E1 Camino Real The proposed land uses changes conflict with one Comprehensive Plan policy, H-5, which discourages the conversion of lands designated as residential to non-residential uses. PREPARED BY: CHITRA MOITRA Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~ STEVE EMSLIE, ~dO~a~Direct of Planning a munity Assistant City Manager Environment ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:Resolutions for Approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Attachment B:Ordinances for Approval of Rezonings Attachment C:Location Maps CMR: 167:07 Page 5 of 6 Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) staff reports December 6, 2006 and January 10, 2007 (without attachments). Minutes of P&TC meeting of December 6, 2006 and January 10, 2007 Initial Studies, Negative Declarations dated COURTESY COPIES: George P. Casten Inc. Russell Panowicz Mark D. Hudak Carl S. Morgan P.M. Pollock Monroe Park Neighborhood Association Elisa Noonan CMR: 167:07 Page 6 of 6 Attachment A NOT YET APPROVED RESOLUTION NO~ RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 4329 EL CAMINO REAL FROM MULTIPLE FAMILY TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing on December 6, 2006 recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of said recommendation after duly noticed public hearing, the Council desires to amend said plan as hereinafter set forth; The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION i. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region require amendment of the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation of the area depicted in Exhibit A from Multiple Family to Service Commercial. Exhibit A is attached to this resolution and incorporated into it by this reference. // // // // // // // 070227 syn 0120181 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution will have no.significant adverse environmental impact. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: St.Deputy City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 070227 syn 0120181 ILegend Project Site The Cily of Palo Alto Exhibit A 4329 E1 Camino Real This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS NOT YET APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 3981 EL C~MIN0 REAL FROM MULTIPLE FAMILY TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing on December 6, 2006 recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of said recommendation after duly noticed public hearing, the Council desires to amend said plan as hereinafter set forth; follows: The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as SECTION i. The. City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region require amendment of the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation of the area depicted in Exhibit A from Multiple Family to Service Commercial. Exhibit A is attached to this resolution and incorporated into it by this reference. // // // // // // // 070227 syn 0120183 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution will have no significant adverse environmental impact. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sr.Deputy City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Plannlng and Community Environment 070227 syn 0120183 2 ILegend Project Site City of Palo Alto Exhibit A 3981 E1 Camino Real This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS NOT YET APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 4151 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD FROM MULTIPLE FAMILY TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing on December 6, 2006 recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of said recommendation after duly noticed public hearing, the Council desires to amend said plan as hereinafter set forth; follows: The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as SECTION i. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region require amendment of the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation of the area depicted in Exhibit A from Multiple Family to Service Commercial. Exhibit A is attached to this resolution and incorporated into. it by this reference. // // // // // // // 070227 syn 0120185 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution will have no significant adverse environmental impact. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sr.Deputy City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 070227 syn 0120185 Legend I]]]~] Project Site The City of Palo Alto This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 4151 Middlefield Road NOT YET APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 725 SAN ANTONIO AVENUE FROM MULTIPLE FAMILY TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public .hearing on December 6, 2006 recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Element Of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as sen forth below; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of said recommendation after duly noticed public hearing, the Council desires to amend said plan as hereinafter set forth; follows: The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as SECTION I. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region require amendment of the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation of the area depicted in Exhibit A from Multiple Family to Neighborhood Commercial. Exhibit A is attached to this resolution and incorporated into it by this reference. // // // // // // // 070227 syn 0120187 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution will have no significant adverse environmental impact. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sr.Deputy City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 070227 syn 0120187 2 --"This map is a product of ~~CityofP I Arc IS ~725 San Antonio Avenue Palo Alto . NOT YETAPPROVED Attachment B ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO CHANGE THE ZONE DESIGNATION FOR 4329 EL CAMINO REAL FROM RM-30 ZONE DESIGNATION TO THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL ZONE DESIGNATION The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:: SECTION i. The City Council finds as follows: A.The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on December 6, 2006 has recommended that the City Council rezone the approximately i.67 acre subject site (4329 E1 Camino Real) to the Service Commercial zone designation. B.The Planning and Transportation Commission has reviewed the facts presented at the public hearing,including public testimony and reports and recommendations from the director of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff. C.The Planning and Transportation Commission find that rezoning RM-30 portion of the parcel to Service Commercial zoning is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is recommended to be Service Commercial. D.The Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on , and has reviewed the environmental documents prepared for the project and all other relevant information, including staff reports,and al! testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter. SECTION 2. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare require an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in Section 3. SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to place RM-30 portion of the subject site (4329 E1 Camino Real), an approximately 1.67 acre site, within the Service Commercial (CS) zoning district. 070302 syn 0120182 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 4. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property; therefore, the pro3ect would have no significant impact on the environment. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sr. Deputy City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 070302 syn 012(~ 182 NOT YET APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO CHANGE THE ZONE DESIGNATION FOR 3981 EL CAMINO REAL FROM RM-30 AND RM 40 ZONE DESIGNATION TO THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL ZONE DESIGNATION The Council of the City of Pal0 Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. The City Council finds as follows: A.The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on December 6, 2006 has recommended that the City Council rezone the approximately 1.47 acre subject site (3981 E1 Camino Real) to the Service Commercial zone designation. B.The Planning and Transportation Commission ’has reviewed the facts presented at the public hearing,including public testimony and reports and recommendations from the director of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff. C.The Planning and Transportation Commission find that rezoning the parcel to Service Commercial zoning is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is recommended to be Service Commercial. D.The Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on , and has reviewed the environmental documents prepared for the project and all other relevant information, including staff reports,and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter. SECTION 2. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare require an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in Section 3. SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to place the subject site (3981 E1 Camino Real), an approximately 1.47 acre site, within the Service Commercial (CS) zoning district. 070307 syn 0120184 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 4. The Council hereby finds that this ~rezoning is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property; therefore, the project would have no significant impact on the environment. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sr. Deputy City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 070307 syn 0120184 NOT YET APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO CHANGE THE ZONE DESIGNATION FOR 4151 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD FROM RM-15 ZONE DESIGNATION TO THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL ZONE DESIGNATION The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. The City Council finds as follows: A.The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on December 6, 2006 has recommended that the City Council rezone the approximately .93 acre subject site (4151 Middlefield Road) to the Service Commercial zone designation. B.The Planning and Transportation Commisslon has reviewed the facts presented at the public hearing,including public testimony and reports and recommendations from the director of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff. The Planning and Transportation Commission find that rezoning the parcel to Service Commercial zoning is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is recommended to be Service Commercial. D.The Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on . , and has reviewed the environmental documents prepared for the project and all other relevant information, including staff reports,and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter. SECTION 2. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare require an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in Section 3. SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to place the subject site (4151 Middlefield Road), an approximately .93 acre site, within the Service Commercial (CS) zoning district. 070227 syn 0120186 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 4. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and i5 has been determined that, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property; therefore, the project would have no significant impact on the environment. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effectlve upon the thirty-first day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sr.Deputy City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 070227 syn 0120186 NOT YET APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO CHANGE THE ZONE DESIGNATION FOR 725 SAN ANTONIO AVENUE FROM RM-15 ZONE DESIGNATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (CN) ZONE DESIGNATION The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. The City Council finds as follows: A.The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on December 6, 2006 has recommended that the City Council rezone the approximately 1.78 acre .subject site (725 San Antonio Avenue) to the Neighborhood Commercial zone designation. B.The Planning and Transportation Commission has reviewed the facts presented at the public hearing,including public testimony and reports and recommendations from the director of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff. C.The Planning and Transportation commission find that rezoning the parcel to Neighborhood Commercial zoning is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is recommended to be Neighborhood Commercial. D.The Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on , and has reviewed the~ environmental documents prepared for the project and all other relevant information, including staff reports,and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter. SECTION 2. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare require an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in Section 3. SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to place the subject site (725 San Antonio Avenue), an approximately 1.78 acre site, within the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning district. 070302 syn 0120188 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 4. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ." An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property; therefore, the project would have no significant impact on the environment. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sr Deputy City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 070227 syn 0120188 Attachment C 4329 E Camino Real (Palo Alto Bow)~ ~?~ X ." .-" ." . @ The City of Palo Alto humNe, 2007-03-05 12:02:31 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 4329 E1 Camino Real and Zoning Districts TNs dooJmenl is a graph~ representalon only of best avataNe sources. ~ City of Palo AIO a~sumes no r espon~i%lity for ~my errors ©t 9~9 Io 2007 City of palo "The City of _Palo Alto ghumble, 2006-124)7 13:40:20(~cdmaps~gis$~gis’~J~d min\Personal~ghu mble.rndb ) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 3981 E1 Camino Real and Zoning Districts 777 777 765 El5 765 2586 8425~(3 2560 2587 A Legend ~ 4151 Middlefield Road O This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 4151 Middlefield Road and ~ The C,t, of"Zoning Districts Palo Alto ~ humb~. 2007413435 t2:26:22 ~~ ~ .....~. ., This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 725 San Antonio Avenue and ~ ~,,o c,,y or Zoning Districts Palo Alto ~ ght~nble, 2007~3~5 12H 0:32 TnJs docurnenl Is a grophk; represenlatbn ordy of best avanable sauce s. Attachment D PLANNING &TRA NSP OR TA TI ON DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Clare Campbell, Planner Chitra Moitra, Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment DATE:December 6, 2006 SUBJECT:Zone Changes and Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation of zone changes to Service Commercial (CS) and a Comprehensive Plan land use designation amendments to Service Commercial for the following four properties: 4329 E1 Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl). This property is currently zoned RM-15 and RM-30. 3981 E1 Camino Real (Mayflower Motel). This property is currently zoned CS, RM-30 and RM-40. 4151 Middlefield Road (Office Building). This property is currently zoned RM- 15. 725 San Antonio Avenue (Summerwinds Nursery). This property is Currently zoned RM- 15. All four properties currently are designated for Multiple Family land use in the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission initiate the rezoning process for the four sites located at 4329 E1 Camino Real, 3981 E1 Camino Real, 4151 Middlefield Road, and 725 San Antonio Avenue and recommend to the City Council the following action: 1.Adopt the Negative Declaration for each of the four sites 2.Adopt the Ordinances (ATTACHMENT A) to rezone the four properties to CS Service Commercial 3.Adopt the Resolutions (ATTACHMENT B) to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation of these four properties to Service Commercial. City of Palo Alto Page l BACKGROUND: On August 7, 2006 the City Council directed staffto initiate a rezoning process for the four sites located at 4329 ElCamino Real, 3981 El Camino Real, 725 San Antonio Road and 4151 Middlefield Road currently zoned and planned for future multiple family residential but used for commercial purposes. The City Council’s intent was to ensure continued use of the sites for commercial development by eliminating the potential for redevelopment with stand-alone housing on the sites. The Council discussed at the meeting limiting the uses on the sites to retail only. After the Council direction, staff contacted and met with the property owners of each site to discuss the potential changes to the future use of the sites. On October 26 staff conducted a community meeting in the Ventura neighborhood to inform the community of the proposed land use changes and rezonings and to solicit community input. Property owners and tenants within 600 feet of each site were notified of the community meeting and the notice was emailed to the Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) website. DISCUSSION In order to evaluate the land use feasibility and development potential for each of the four sites, staff prepared land use prototypes for each site comparing a 100% retail project and a mixed use project, both of which are allowed in commercial zones, to development under the existing multiple family zoning. In the analysis, staff considered parcel sizes, configurations, site ingress and egress, and existing adjacent land use patterns. The staff analysis for each site is summarized below and appended to this staff report.in ATTACHMENTS C through F. Palo Alto Bowl Site The project site is a deep lot with considerable street frontage on E1 Camino Real surrounded by residential uses to the east and north and a motel to the west. The deep layout of the project site is a challenge for both mixed use and retail development since any retail development is constricted to only using the.front portion of the site with street visibility. A possible site design layout could establish a central "main street" access providing visibility for retailers towards the rear of the site. The large size of the site, relative to its retail/commercial floor area ratio, makes it further unlikely that retail/commercial uses would extend across the entire site unless it is a single large footprint retail user. The front of the site could be vertical mixed use and the rear of the site could be lower-scale residential buildings, which would be compatible with existing residential uses to the rear and side of the parcel. Mayflower Motel Site This parcel is an elongated parcel with little street frontage on E1 Camino Real; the frontage is already zoned CS (Service Commercial). The Mayflower Motel is one of three motels located on this commercial strip on E1 Camino Real. The site is narrow and deep and the rear portion of the site which is zoned for residential development is a challenge to develop for retail uses only. A mixed use development would be a better fit than stand-alone retail on the site because of the shape of the parcel. A vertical mixed used building with ground floor retail facing E1 Camino Real could be built in the front portion of the lot, with lower-scale residential buildings in the rear adjacent to existing residential uses: Summerwinds Nursery Site This site is oddly shaped with two distinct street frontages, one on San Antonio Road and the other on Middlefield Road, that limit development potential. A retail building facing City of Palo Alto Page 2 Middlefield Road and two buildings, one along San Antonio Road and the other bordering the property boundary, is an example of retail only development on the site. Under a mixed use scenario, separate mixed use buildings with retail on the ground floor and housing above was analyzed. In order to fully utilize the site given its odd shape, four separate mixed use buildings were envisioned with shared access and parking. Office Site on Middlefield Road The site is a triangular-shaped lot fronting Middlefield Road. The irregular shape of the parcel makes efficient use of this lot difficult. A rectangular retail building could be placed on one comer of the lot and parking spaces could be loosely arranged around the perimeter. Stand-alone retail use or vertical mixed use does not seem suitable for this site because of its odd shape, small size and lack of street frontage. A quasi-office commercial use not requiring much street frontage may be a preferable Use for the site. Traffic Analysis Study A preliminary traffic analysis for all four sites shows the potential increase in traffic is considered insignificant if each site is developed in either retail or mixed use under the existing commercial development standards. For each site, under retail or mixed use scenarios, trip generation calculations show a maximum of 80 vehicle trips ~luring both AM/PM peak hours would be added. CONCLUSION After completing the land use analysis, staff concluded that the most appropriate commercial rezoning for all the sites would be CS (Service Commercial). The CS district is intended to create and maintain areas accommodating services that generally require automobile access and the allowed users are broader than in the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) district. Three of the four sites are located along Palo Alto’s two major transportation corridors, E1 Carnino Real and San Antonio Road. The Middlefield site is adjacent to San Antonio Road. Commercial properties with a street presence fronting either E1 CaminoReal or San Antonio Road are zoned Service Commercial in these areas. Given the physical constraints of each site, staff’s recommendation to rezone all four sites to CS will allow either retail or mixed use development and provide maximum flexibility for future site development. Particularly given the properties configurations and limited street frontage, limiting the uses to retail only may be too restrictive. Rezoning of these sites to CS will also make the existing uses on these properties legal and their viability more likely. The CS zoning will ensure the retention of these sites for future commercial uses and prohibit stand-alone housing development on these sites in the future. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Initial Study (IS) checklist was prepared for each of these rezoning sites, and a Negative Declaration issued since the EIA/IS concluded that no potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the properties. The Negative Declarations were available for public review from November 17, 2006 through December 5, 2006, and are attached to this staff report (Attachment J). The Traffic Analysis Study for all the sites is also provided as Attachment H. City of Palo Alto Page 3 ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinances for Approval of Rezone to CS B. Resolutions for Approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment C. Site Summary and Prototypes: 4329 El Camino Real D. Site Summary and Prototypes: 3981 El Camino Real E. Site Summary and Prototypes: 4151 Middlefield Road F. Site Summary and Prototypes: 725 San Antonio Avenue G. City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt, August 7, 2006 H. Traffic Analysis Study I. Correspondence J. Negative Declarations COURTESY COPIES: Elisa Noonan Donovan Neale-May Charles and Grace Chien George P. Casten Inc, Russell Panowicz Mark D. Hudak Carl S. Morgan Thomas M. Boehm PREPARED BY:Clare Campbell, Planner Chitra Moitra, Planner MANAGER REVIEWED BY:Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams, Assistant Director City of Palo Alto Page 4 PLANNING &TRANSPOR TA TION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chitra Moitra, Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment January 10, 2007 Zone Changes and Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation of a zone change to the Service Commercial (CS) District and a Comprehensive Plan land use designation amendment to Service Commercial for the following property: 4329 E1 Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl). This property is currently zoned RM-15 and RM-30. The property currently is designated for Multiple Family land use in the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council the following action: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration for 4329 E1 Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl). 2. Adopt the Ordinance (ATTACHMENT A) to rezone the property to Service Commercial (cs). 3. Adopt the Resolution (ATTACHMENT B) to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation to Service Commercial. BACKGROUND: On August 7, 2006, the City Council directed staffto initiate a rezoning process for four sites including the Palo Alto Bowl site located at 4329 E1 Camino Real. The four sites are currently zoned and planned for multiple family residential use but are developed for commercial purposes. The City Council’s intent was to ensure continued use of the sites for commercial development by eliminating the potential for redevelopment with housing on the sites. The City of Palo Alto Page l Council also discussed at the meeting limiting the uses on the sites to retail only. On October 26 staff conducted a community meeting in the Ventura neighborhood to inform the community of the four proposed land use changes and rezonings and to solicit community input. On December 6, 2006, the Planning and Transportation Commission discussed the rezonings on all four sites. The PTC concluded the public hearings for three of the properties but continued the hearing on the Palo Alto Bowl site until January 10, 2007. Although testimony was taken from the public regarding the rezoning on the bowling alley site at the December 6 meeting, the hearing remained open to enable further testimony on January 10. Four residents who lived near or adjacent to the site testified at the December 6 hearing (see ATTACHMENT C). Their main concerns were increased traffic from redevelopment of the site particularly during the morning commute and increased students within the Los Altos school district from potential housing development. Staff met with areas residents on January 4, 2007 to further discuss neighborhood concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of the property and to explain the development review process for any redevelopment of the site. The main concerns for the neighborhood are the potential for intensification of use particularly if the site is combined with the adjacent motel site resulting in increased traffic and safety hazards, particularly to school children. Ingress and egress to and from the site and cut through traffic on Monroe Park were also issues. DISCUSSION In order to evaluate the land use feasibility and development potential of the site, staff prepared land use prototypes for the site comparing a 100% retail project and a mixed use project, both of which are allowed in commercial zones, to development under the existing multiple family zoning. In the analysis (ATTACHMENT D), staff considered the parcel size, configuration, site ingress and egress constraints, and existing adjacent land use patterns. Traffic Analysis Study Subsequent to the December 6 meeting, the City’s contract traffic engineer prepared additional analysis regarding the assumptions in the original traffic study and confirmed that the potential increase in traffic from redevelopment of the site would be considered insignificant. With either 100% retail or mixed use, the adjusted trip generation numbers will be less than the potential trips generated by the current bowling alley use. Consistent with Council-approved traffic methodology, the traffic analysis assumes a fully utilized bowling alley use and assigns trip generation accordingly. Redevelopment with residential development would also result in fewer trips than the bowling alley use. For a mixed use or retail project, an adjustment is made to the traffic generation to account for pass-by and or diverted trips. The adjustment accounts for trips that are already either passing the site or on the roadway at a nearby location; these trips are not treated the same as a destination trip to a bowling alley. Staff has concluded that the traffic analysis completed for the rezoning conforms to standard traffic methodology. Additional traffic analysis will be completed for any future development of the site and would evaluate impacts from an actual proposed use on the site. Part of that analysis may recommend upgrades to the Monroe intersection or other improvements to enhance safety and access. City of Palo Alto Page 2 CONCLUSION Staff has determined that the most appropriate commercial rezoning for this site is CS (Service Commercial). The CS district is intended to create and maintain areas accommodating services that generally require automobile access and the allowed uses are broader (allows bowling alleys) than in the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) district. The site is located along E1 Camino Real with a street presence fronting E1 Camino Real and to match the surrounding land use Service Commercial (CS) zoning matches the surrounding land uses and seems to be the most appropriate zoning for this property. Given the physical constraints of this site, staff’s recommendation to rezone to CS will allow either retail or mixed use development and provide maximum flexibility for future site development. Rezoning of the site to CS will also make the existing use on this property legal and viability for the current use to upgrade and remain on site more likely. The CS zoning will ensure the retention of this site for future commercial use and prohibit stand-alone housing development in the future. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Initial Study (IS) checklist was prepared for this site, and a Negative Declaration circulated since the EIA/IS concluded that no potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the properties. The Negative Declaration was available for public review from November 17, 2006 through December 5, 2006, and is attached to this staff report (ATTACHMENT E). The Traffic Analysis Study as amended is provided as ATTACHMENT F. ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance for Approval of Rezone to CS B. Resolution for Approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment C. PTC Meeting Minutes Excerpt, December 6, 2006 D. Site Summary and Prototype: 4329 E1 Camino Real E. Negative Declaration F. Traffic Analysis Study (with addendum) G. Correspondence COURTESY COPIES: George P. Casten Inc. Russell Panowicz Mark D. Hudak Carl S. Morgan P.M. Pollock Monroe Park Neighborhood Association PREPARED BY:Chitra Moitra, Planner MANAGER REVIEWED BY:Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager. DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams, Assistant Director City of Palo Alto Page 3 Attachment E 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 :MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26 Wednesday, December 6, 2006 SPECIAL Meeting at 7:00 PM Council Conference Room Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: 7:05 PM Commissioners: Karen Holman - Chair Lee 1. Lippert- V-Chair PatrickBurt Paula Sandas Arthur Keller Daniel Garber Samir Tuma Staff: Curtis Williams, Assistant Director Donald Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager Clare Campbell, Planner Chitra Moitra, Planner Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary AGENDIZED ITEMS: 1. Zone Changes and Comprehensive Plan Amendments Chair Holman: I’d like to call the meeting for Wednesday, December 6 to order~ Will the Secretary call the roll, please? Thank you. This being the meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission for Wednesday, December 6, we are meeting in the Council Conference Room. I ask everybody’s indulgence Commissioners, public, and Staffthat we have that microphone situation where it picks up all paper rustling and side conversations and everything. So if we can all be just really especially mindful of that. Zariah especially will be most appreciative of that. If someone in the public needs to have a side conversation if you could just go outside with that that would also be very helpful. The microphones are sensitive but not discriminate. This is the time on the agenda that any member of the public can speak to any item not on tonight’s agenda. So if any one has that interest they could do so. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 1 of 71 1 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members ofthe public may speak to any item not on the agenda 2 with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a 3 speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and 4 Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 5 minutes. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Seeing no cards for that we will go onto item number one. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Chair Holman: Item one is Zone Changes and Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation of Zone Changes and Comprehensive Plan Amendments for four properties. The proposed zone district is the Service Commercial (CS) and the proposed land use designation is Service Commercial for each property. All four properties have the Multiple Family Comprehensive Plan land use designation. There are four properties listed here and we are going to have one Staff Report then we are going to take~ each property individually because there are different concerns and different interests in the public on these four properties. We have one conflict of interest on the Commission so we are going to take the first one that is listed in the Staff Report last. Does the City Attorney want to make a statement or should I go to Commissioner Garber? Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Depu _tyCity Attorney: I was only going to say that even though it is listed as one item on the agenda it is really four separate items but we are going to be doing a consolidated Staff Report in order to save time. NEW BUSINESS New Business." Zone Changes and Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation of Zone Changes and Comprehensive Plan Amendments for four properties. The proposed zone district is the Service Commercial (CS) and the proposed land use designation is Service Commercial for each property. All four properties have the Multiple Family Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The following are the four affected properties: 4329 El Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl). This property is currently zoned RM- 15 and RM-30. 3981 E! Camino Real (Mayflower Motel). This property is currently zoned CS, RM-30 and RM-40. 4151 Middlefield Road (Office Building). This property is currently zoned RM- 15. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 2 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 725 San Antonio Avenue (Summerwinds Nursery). This property is currently zoned RM-15. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Ms. Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager: Good evening. I wanted to first of all before I introduce Chitra Moitra and Clare Campbell who will kind of walk you through each of the sites I wanted to give you a little bit of background on why we are here and the process that we have gone through. First of all, we went to Council in June of this year with the Comprehensive Plan Update Work Program, which the Commission had seen previously. One element of the program is to ensure that sufficient land has been preserved for retail uses and that policies that limit the loss of retail serving uses be added or strengthened. The Council had concern when we went to them with the work program that the current plan over emphasizes houses at the expense of retail commercial development. That is one of the reasons why they wanted the retail land use policies looked at and strengthened. The Council approved the work program but they asked Staffto return with a list of sites that were planned zoned for residential uses but used for retail and not on the current Housing Element Sites Inventory. Staffwas also asked to identify ways to ensure retention of retail uses as an interim measure in the short term because they were concerned that the Comp Plan process which would take two to three years that other sites could be developed in retail uses that were currently planned for retail uses. They also had some concerns about sites that were used for retail but were planned and zoned for residential. So that is why they asked for this list. We returned to the Council in August with the information that they had requested. At that time they decided to direct us to remove standalone housing in commercial zoning districts which we did through the ZOU process which you saw a couple of months ago and that has been approved by Council. Then the other thing they asked us to do was to initiate, rezonings on these four sites. There is a list that we had provided of sites that were planned and zoned for residential purposes but were used for retail. There were six on the list and they asked us to initiate rezonings on the four that you see before you. We have distributed Comprehensive Plan policies that pertain to these sites that we didn’t include in the Staff Report. The reason we didn’t include this discussion as you normally see is because one of the reasons for the Comprehensive Plan Update is to address the fact that retail retention is not reflected Sufficiently in the plan. So there is a recognition by the Council that the Comprehensive Plan is deficient in that area but you do have the information before you tonight. So you can see that there is this emphasis in the Comprehensive Plan on commercial sites to be redeveloped in housing when appropriate. The other thing I wanted to go through was the process for our analysis. We evaluated each site. We looked at the parcel sizes, configurations, ingress, egress, adjacent land use patterns, and we prepared prototypes which were in your Staff Report for three land uses for each site residential, existing residential, which is planned and zoned for each site, retail and mixed use using the development standards of the CS zoning. We want to emphasize that the prototypes are not City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 3 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 indicative of what would go on these sites. They are just possibilities, they are scenarios for each of those types of land uses maximizing the development standards. We thought that they were reasonable for each of the land use types. That analysis is appended to your Staff Report. We concluded that the properties have constraints for really any type of development that is probably why these four sites haven’t been developed in housing to date. Given the housing market housing would be difficult but also mixed use and retail as you can see from the analysis that we prepared. I just wanted to let you know that we held a community meeting to discuss the four sites on October 26. We contacted all the property owners and we met with all the property owners regarding what is being proposed. We also notified all the area residents within 600 feet of the property sites of the meetings including the community meeting. We also sent an email to the PAN website so all of the notices for the hearings, this hearing as well as the community meeting, had been posted on the PAN website. I think the decisions for the Commission tonight are really three decisions, possibly one but as many as three. The first is the lands use for each site and are looking at them individually. Is the appropriate land use and zoning residential or commercial? If you decide that it is commercial then is it CS or CN? Then the third decision is should these properties be restricted to retail only, which was a concern for Council. In our evaluation we feel because of the constraints of the properties there should be some flexibility and the CN zoning district is more appropriate because it would allow flexibility, allow mixed use projects on the site as well as a retail project. With that I will turn it over. Vice-Chair Lippert: Did you mean CS? Ms. Caporgno: CS, yes, I’m sorry. Did I say CN? I’m sorry. Mr. Curtis Williams, Assistant Director: I would like to have Donald indicate to you, because I had a question today from Commissioner Tuma, which I think is a very good question as far as what the basis is for review of a legislative action like this. So maybe he could respond to that before we move into the presentations on the four sites. Mr. Larkin: As Curtis said this is a legislative rather than a quasi-judicial act that comes within the City’s power to regulate health, safety and welfare. That is a much broader concept than what you normally think of as physical health, safety and welfare. It is within the Commission’s discretion to recommend and the Council’s discretion to adopt zone changes if they have a reasonable tendency to promote the public health, morals, safety or general welfare of the community and there is broad discretion in determining what is reasonable. There must be a rational basis for the decision and the zone change and there are due process rights of the property owners. This is a subject on which the Commission has much broader discretion than a quasi-judicial where there are specific findings that the Commission is being asked to make. Ms. Caporgno: Thank you. I am going to introduce Chitra Moitra who is going to walk you through three of the sites and then Clare Campbell will walk you through the fourth one. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 4 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Chitra Moitra, Planner: Good evening everybody. The first site I will be talking about is 725 San Antonio. This quite a big parcel, it is about 1.78 acres in size. This parcel is very unique in its way because it has two street frontages one is the San Antonio side and the other is the Middlefield side. The San Antonio side as you can see has close to 300 feet of street frontage while the Middlefield side has about only 120 feet of street frontage. Because of this uniqueness of this site, the two street frontages, this lot is dealt with quite separately from the others. The shape itself poses a lot of challenges. First if we consider retail development on this lot it is okay on the San Antonio side where it has quite a lot of feet for ingress and egress. So this side is fine but this lot depth is close to 270 feet so any retail, which is located behind the lot, would have less visibility from the San Antonio side. So it is something to think about and what kind of retail to be located around here. My suggestion is a big footprint retail, a single one, might be appropriate for this site. Here on the Middlefield side it is literally with parking, with driveways it is not suitable for any retail use right here. The next alternative I would be talking about is what happens if we propose mixed use here. It is generally retail on the first floor and residential on the floors above. Here in this prototype you can see buildings arranged in this way and parking could be shared within all the buildings in the center part. Based on the CS zoning standards about 53 residential units can be built in this parcel and about 31,000 square feet of retail can be accommodated on the first floor. Again, the same problems, retail behind is not accessible or is not that visible from the street. So that might be again the same kind of problem here. The third scenario, which is the residential scenario, shows here in this prototype that you can build row houses like those facing both of the street sides. Based on the existing zoning which is RM-15 here we can build about 27 housing units in here. So as you can see the CS lets you pack in more units, 53 versus 27. These are some of the numbers, which have been generated by what can be accommodated on this site. Mr. Williams: Moitra, can you let them know what the existing use is? Ms. Chitra: The existing use for this site is the Summerwinds Nursery site, which is right here, The next site I am going to talk about is 4151 Middlefield, which is just adjacent to the Summerwinds Nursery site. This is a triangular shaped parcel, which makes efficient use of this parcel very inconvenient because if you place a rectangular building right in front facing the street all these portions remain "you cannot use it properly. Size wise this is .93 acres and right now currently this parcels have a relatively new office building in here. Again, to build to the maximum FAR allowed by CS standards either the actual building could be made into two floors or parking could be arranged on the ground or structured. It is just an example. It can accommodate about 16,000 square feet of retail space in here. The next prototype is the residential/mixed use prototype with retail on the bottom with residential on top. Based on the CS zoning standards we can put in 28 units in here and about 16,000 square feet of retail use in here. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 5 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 The residential prototype is based on the actual current RM-15 zoning and we can put in about 14 units in here and it can be arranged any way. This space can be used as a shared public space for all the units and parking can be arranged at the back. Again this particular parcel is not suitable for standalone retail because of the access problem and the shape of the parcel. So we would recommend quasi-retail kind of like an office kind of use for this parcel. The third site I will talk about is 3981 E1 Camino Real or the Mayflower Motel site. Again, this parcel is very, very deep and narrow. It has about only 130 feet of street frontage on El Camino Real. It goes way back about 400 feet and it is packed on the sides. It has no accessibility from either of these two sides. So the street frontage is the only way cars can get in and get out; So that is a huge drawback on this site. Let me first talk about the retail scenario of this one. Again, just because of the nature of this parcel only large footprint retailers are suitable for this site. Small retailers if they look at the back it is not that much lucrative for them so I think they should have big signs to make them visible. So again, in and out is a problem here. So the back portion here is shown to be used for parking but to achieve the maximum FAR which is permissible under the CS zoning for retail use either the front part of the building could be two storied or parking could be done underground. That is the retail scenario. Under the mixed use scenario with retail on the ground floor and residential on the top floors, again, the retail is located behind does not visibility from the street so small footprints are not suitable. Either medium or large footprint retail is suitable for this site. In the front the bulk of the building could be higher but at the back the buildings are at lower scale so that it kind of fits with the surrounding single-family homes and here. Based on the mixed use zoning standards about 44 units could be accommodated in this site and about 25,000 square feet of retail use. The third alternative that the existing zoning based on - this parcel has feathered zoning which means it has more than one type of zoning. So the front part of the parcel, which is about .28 acres, is CS and from this down here it is RM-40 and the back portion of the parcel, which is about .88 acres, is RM-30. So there are three types of zoning here. Actually, here it has retail and the back. So what we have done is based on the actual RM zoning standards we figured that about 35 units could be accommodated here, which again is less than what we can achieve with the CS zoning standards. This is about it. Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: So for the last site it is 4329 E1 Camino Real. It is Palo Alto Bow. Commissioner Garber: IfI am going to excuse myselfI probably need to do it now. Should I announce that and then leave and then come back? Okay. I am going to recuse myself from this conversation on this property only because prior to knowing this was on the Commission’s agenda I had a conversation with a party about possible ways to think about zoning of this site. I have no financial stake in this whatsoever I just think it is appropriate for me to separate myself having had prior conversatiom City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 6 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. Campbell: Okay for the last site it is the Palo Alto Bowl. This particular site is located on the outskirts of Palo Alto and it borders Mountain View. So Mountain View is actually across the street and maybe about a block way starts the Mountain View city limits. Vice-Chair Lippert: Los Altos is across the street. Ms. Campbell: I’m sorry, excuse me. Thank you. The existing surrounding uses of this site are an existing motel, it is a Motel 6, we have R-1 single family homes in the back, there is a PC zoned site right here and this is a multi-family building, and there is a small commercial space. So this here is CS already and this is already CS as well. The site itself is split it is RM-30 in the front about two-thirds of the lot and the rear portion of the lot is RM-15 currently. The frontage of this parcel is approximately 260 feet and the average depth is roughly 380 feet deep. So for this prototype it basically shows what we could do if we were to develop this as 100 percent retail. It shows a maximum FAR, we have 40 percent FAR, and it is roughly 37,800 square feet for this building. The way it has been developed it shows it has two stories. There is a small second story element here and there is a structured parking arrangement for the parking. The existing use on this site is the bowling alley and the Thai restaurant and is roughly close to representing the size of this building that you are seeing here. One of the other constraints of this particular is the access. I think it has been mentioned previously that because it only has one street frontage there is definitely limited access in and out to the site. With the large site and the depth of the lot it does make it very difficult to develop this as 100 percent commercial if you wanted to max out the floor area because the retailers, just like with the other sites, do not want to be located at the back of the lot they want to be up front near the street so people can see them from vehicle traffic and things like that. So that does create a pretty significant constraint for a retail development. I think that’s it. This prototype is a mixed use alternative. It shows basically that the orange represents all of the commercial at the ground floor and the yellow represents the residential proposed. So towards the front of the property you could have it stacked and then towards the rear of the property you could have a less dense residential project, which is more compatible with the existing residential uses in the rear. This prototype also illustrates the same constraints as the 100 percent residential project where the limited visibility from the street can create a problem for retailers. So you can have an access, kind of a center lane going down the middle and maybe with this particular site design it can allow for some additional visibility going into the rear of the lot so some of the other stores or offices can be seen. You would have to put in the additional signage to make it more viable for the retailers that are located in the rear of the property. With this particular development we have a maximum residential FAR of 60, which is what is allowed with the new steep standards, and 60 percent gives you roughly 56,000 square feet. With 30 dwelling units per acre you can have a maximum of 65 dwelling units for this site. That is about it for this one. The last one is using the existing residential zoning for the parcel. Like we said before it is approximately two-thirds RM-30 and one-third RM-I 5. Using our existing RM regulations that we have today you could get a 55-unit development with the existing zoning. That is the same FAR as the mixed use as well which is .6. Then this is a compatible use with the existing City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 7 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ~ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 residential in the rear but it can make for an awkward development when you are on El Camino and it is basically surrounded by other commercial uses. I think that is about it. Thank you. Ms. Capor~no: I think that really concludes it for us. I just want to stress and correct myself again to make sure that you know that we are recommending CS not CN. Also to stress the fact that these are prototypes. We aren’t saying that any of these sites are going to be developed this way. We just wanted to give the Commission an indication as to what could be developed under the different land use types and we thought this would be an effective way of demonstrating it. That concludes our Staff Report. Chair Holman: Thank you. So as stated earlier Commissioner Garber does have conflict on what is listed as the first one or first of these four properties that being the Palo Alto Bowl site. So we are going to take that one last so that we are not holding him up for the whole evening. Hopefully members of the public will understand that as well. Would somebody get Commissioner Garber? So the first property that we are going to address is 3981 E1 Camino Real where the Mayflower Motel is located. When we are undertaking each of these considerations individually that means that members of the public will also get to speak. We are also having a lot of rattling of paper if we could watch that. So members of the public if you would identify which property you want to speak to we will entertain your comments on each individual site as well. Ellen Fletcher, which address did you want to speak to? Ms. Ellen Fletcher, Palo Alto: San Antonio and Middlefield. Chair Holman: That is not your address that is the one you want to speak to, okay. So right now I have one card for 3981 El Camino at the moment. Does anybody else want to speak to that address? So if you do want to speak to that address please turn your cards in. First, do Commissioners have clarifying questions of Staff?. Don, did you have something to say? Mr. Larkin: In addition to the four individual action items there is a separate action item to initiate the rezoning on these properties. That could probably be done in one single motion and members of the public would be allowed to speak to whether or not to initiate although that wouldn’t have any bearing on the individual properties. It is whether or not a public hearing should be held and since everybody is here for a public hearing I wouldn’t think that would be controversial. That probably needs to happen before the motions on the individual properties. Dan can make his decision on whether he would want to vote on that or not but because there is no actual legal conflict I think it would be appropriate for him to vote on the overall motion to initiate. Chair Holman: So you are saying that at this point in time you want a separate motion to undertake or initiate this discussion or this potential zone change. Can I have a motion to that effect? MOTION City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 8 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: So moved. SECOND Vice-Chair Lippert: Second. MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) Chair Holman: Okay. Is there any discussion about that? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. (ayes) There are none opposed so that passes seven to zero. Then clarifying questions for Staff?. Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: With regard to the rezoning of these properties if we felt that there was another zoning type that was appropriate since we are a recommending body to Council we have the ability to look at that and recommend that? Mr. Larkin: Yes within limits. I think it has to be something that was contemplated by the Staff Report but certainly a rezoning to CN instead of CS would be something that would be within the Commission’s purview. A rezoning to Open Space probably wouldn’t but I don’t think that would be something that would be considered. Chair Holman: Any other clarifying questions of Staff?. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Staffhad outlined what they felt that our actions could be in sort of three pieces. Would you outline those again, please? Ms. Caporgno: Yes. The first is to determine whether or not you think the properties should be rezoned at all. In other words, if they should be residential or commercial. So if the Commission decides they are commercial then you aren’t going to need to do any more ¯ discussion because they are currently commercial. Excuse me, residential. I am sorry I have been doing the same thing. So if you want to retain the residential land use and zoning district on the properties then that the decision and you don’t have any further decisions. If you determine that they should be rezoned and re-designated for commercial purposes then you have to make a decision as to what is the appropriate commercial zoning district. Is it CS or CN? Those are basically the two that would be appropriate for these sites. Then also since the Council had indicated a consideration of retail only on these sites we would like the Commission to discuss whether or not it would be appropriate to restrict uses on the properties to retail only or you want the flexibility of all the types of uses that would be allowed under either the CS or CN zoning district. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Just to follow up could you briefly outline for all of our edification the critical differences between CS and CN? City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 9 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Caporgno: First of all we distributed to you the portions of the zoning ordinance that pertain to the different uses that are allowed under the two different zoning districts and also the development standards. I believe under the Comprehensive Plan CN or Commercial Neighborhood is for more pedestrian oriented development that would serve a neighborhood. The CS zoning and land use designation are more for commercial service, automobile related in the sense that the uses are anticipated to serving people who are arriving by automobile or are not in the area. Under the development standards there is more intense development allowed under the CS versus than the CN I believe in the height. There is 25 feet in height for the CN and up to 50 in height for the CS unless it is abutting residential and then I believe it is 35 feet. There are a few more uses that are allowed under the CS as opposed to the CN but again the CN is more restricted to neighborhood serving uses. The CN doesn’t allow hotels. Chair Holman: I think I saw Commissioner Keller first and then Commissioner Burtl Commissioner Keller: Yes, the first question is to the extent that there are nearby CS or CN properties to the zoning at what point is it an appropriate time to ask are there any CN zoned properties adjacent to or near these four sites or is it primarily CS near these four sites? Ms. Caporgno: It is primarily CS that is near these four sites. I don’t think there are any CN areas that are near any of them. Commissioner Keller: The second question is that one of the materials that were sent to us indicated something about the information about what might be coming down in the Housing Element from ABAG. So what extent are considerations of potential housing requirements for the city from these ABAG requirements, to what extent are those the kinds of things that we would consider today? Ms. Caporgno: We!l, first of all none of these sites are on the current Housing Sites Inventory. We are going to have to in preparing our revised Housing Element after we get the ABAG numbers we will have to identify additional housing sites. We know that. These sites under a CS zoning district could accommodate mixed use development and as both Clare and Chitra pointed out when they went through the individual sites, you would get approximately the same number of units on each of these sites under a mixed use development. We don’t exactly how we could limit meet the Housing Element requirements with mixed use yet. We haven’t gotten that information from the state regarding what the requirements would be but during the last Housing Element cycle they did allow mixed use. In fact some of the sites that we identified on our inventory we identified as having the potential to be mixed use development. So there is that potential. So I don’t think if in fact these are changed to CS that would have any significant impact on our Housing Element numbers. Commissioner Keller: I assume that that’s the case assuming that we did not take the retail only option which is your third choice. Ms. Caporgno: Exactly. I said if they are just under CS, if there is a mixed use component allowed, if there is retail then you would lose the numbers of units -there is the potential for losing the total number of units on all the sites you recommend restricting to retail only. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 10 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: Okay. My last question is which of these sites currently have what one would consider retail on them and which of these sites don’t have what might be considered retail or revenue producing things for the city? Ms. Caporgno: I think all of them have retail on them. We have one that has office. The Middlefield site has an office building. Commissioner Keller: So all three sites have some revenue producing in some way and 4151 Middlefield is not what one would consider a retail site now. Ms. Caporgno: Correct. Now to add one thing as far as the amount of revenue I don’t think the motel is producing that much revenue from a standpoint of other motels or some hotels in the area but they are all revenue generating. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Yes. We got a good comparison on the different commercial zones with this handout summarizing Chapter 18.16 but is there anything in the packet that compares side- by-side the existing zoning for the sites and what is allowable? We are looking at the change not just the options of what type of commercial but moving from the existing zoning to the commercial. Ms. CaporCno: We just identified in the scenarios what the existing zoning was but we didn’t give you any additional information regarding or the type of information you received on the residential zoning districts. We just identified the RM-40, which allows up to 40 units per acre, RM-30 on portions of them, and I think some of them have some RM-15 also. Commissioner Burt: Right, and under you alternative scenarios I know you did some of that so we can kind of look at that when we get into our discussion area we might want to follow up and see things like allowable heights, the FAR and some of the key aspects. Ms. Caporgno: The residential scenario that was described looked at the maximum residential allowed on each site under the existing zoning district. So ifa portion of it was RM-40 and RM- 50. Commissioner Burt: Those comparisons we can find in here. Ms. Caporgno: Yes. Commissioner Burt: My other question was would Staff review a little bit I know there were extensive discussions at Council and not all Council Members had identical perspectives on the objectives. Can you review your understanding of what the real goals were that the Council had when they were looking to initiate consideration of this rezoning? City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 11 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms: Caporgno: My impression was that it was to retain the uses for retail purposes for tax generation purposes primarily. It wasn’t for neighborhood serving retail although that was one of the components of the Comprehensive Plan Update that they wanted to make sure that we adequately addressed. When they looked at these sites the discussion primarily centered around retention of the sites for retail and not necessarily for the existing retail uses as far as revenue generating but for potential revenue generation on the sites. I think there was also a concern that they would be redeveloped in housing and then there would be the loss of that potential future revenue that could be coming from those sites. Commissioner Burt: So as far as you know they were anticipating that if we went to this rezoning there would be a significant potential that the existing uses would not be retained. Ms. Caporgno: That wasn’t discussed. There was a discussion about loss of the sites for housing and I think they recognized that the sites could be redeveloped. I know we included the minutes and it was very unclear. Commissioner Burt: The sense minutes as well. Mr. Williams: IfI could just add that I wasn’t at the August 7 meeting but I was at an earlier meeting where it was discussed to put this on August 7. I recall specifically mention of Palo Alto Bowl and the Mayflower Motel as one Council Member saying he thought that these properties were ripe for redevelopment and that in fact maybe on the market today and was concerned about that being an imminent potential in his mind and they may not stay in the use that they are currently in. The other two sites I don’t recall specific mention. Commissioner Burt: Okay. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: My first question is a follow up to Commissioner Keller’s question about the ABAG numbers. I understood your explanation but I have a couple of questions. The attachment that came with one of the letters, there is a chart there, ifI understood from your explanation we have not been given final ABAG numbers. Is that correct? Ms. Caporgno: Correct: Commissioner Tuma: So do you know what these numbers are? Ms. Caporgno: Yes. What they did is ABAG is developing a methodology for allocating the next round of numbers. We don’t know what the total number is that is going to be allocated. That won’t come until early in 2007 or maybe June of 2007 we will be receiving it. The numbers will probably be available in February or March, So what they did there is they took the methodology that they were considering using and took the old number that was allocated in the previous round and they applied it to the jurisdictions. They also used some figures that they haven’t adopted yet either which are the growth forecasts for both the jobs numbers as well as City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 12 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 housing numbers, or population numbers. So the ABAG 2007 population number forecasts and housing growth which wi!l be coming out up through 2015. Commissioner Tuma: Do we know when we expect those numbers to come? Ms. CaporCno: Those numbers they have, we have made some recommendations to change. They had asked the individual jurisdictions what their opinions were on the numbers. We thought that the jobs numbers appeared to be okay, the housing numbers or the population figures seemed to be somewhat high. We had commented twice to ABAG and it is my understanding that currently the ABAG Board has not adopted the numbers but the ABAG staff did not recommend to accept our changes. Commissioner Tuma: Okay. I want to dwell on this a little bit further because I think it is actually quite important. When we get ABAG numbers if I recall correctly they are broken down by different levels of housing, correct? Ms. Caporgno: Yes, there are income categories. Commissioner Tuma: When you were explaining the different scenarios under which you would get roughly equal if not greater housing under CS versus all residential are there differences in the types of housing that you would get vis-h-vis the ABAG numbers. Is that question fair? Ms. Capor~no: No, because the ABAG numbers are looking at income categories and we have no way of determining if it is going to be for instance a totally affordable project versus a market rate project with a below market rate component. Commissioner Tuma: So none of those assumptions were in the numbers. Ms. Capor~no: Correct. We have no way of knowing and there is no way that we can assume that. Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I just want a clarification. A rezoning on these properties the existing uses and the existing buildings are grandfathered in and can remain there in perpetuity as long as the building owners wish them to remain in operation, correct? Ms. Caporgno: That is correct. Mr. Williams: That said, rezoning as recommended here will in fact generally take away a nonconforming use because right now these properties are commercial or office in residential zones. So if it was rezoned to CS then they would be conforming uses and there wouldn’t be any grandfather issue associated wit those in that situation. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, you had another clarifying question? City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 13 of 71 1 Commissioner Keller: Yes, a follow up to Commissioner Lippert’s question. If we did not 2 rezone one or more of these properties and due to some sort of fire, disaster or whatever, the 3 property needed to be rebuilt in some way to what extent would the nonconforming use preclude 4 the rebuilding of these properties to their prior state? 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Caporgno: Given a disaster they could rebuild the property to the existing development. If they decided to expand the use or add on that is where they are restricted. The grandfather use would not allow them to do any sort of expansion. So they are constrained in that sense. Commissioner Keller: If they did decide to do improvements on the current properties would that? Ms. Caporgno: Yes, they are constrained. So they are basically stuck with what they have. Chair Holman: Basically it is you can’t increase your nonconformity. Ms. Caporgno: Correct. Chair Holman: Yes, okay. Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I have a question that pertains to two of the properties I don’t know whether now is the time to ask. I will ask it now and you can answer either in context of the individual properties or the other. 725 San Antonio and 4151 Middlefield abut each other, correct? Ms. Caporgno: That is correct. Commissioner Tuma: Did you look at any scenarios under which those parcels would be combined? Ms. Caporgno: No because they are individually owned. If they are going to be rezoned the individual owner wouldn’t necessarily - if it was the same owner then we would have looked at them in combination. In fact when we first put them on the list for the Council and the Council told us to go ahead with this it was one site. Then we discovered that they were two parcels. So that is why we looked at them separately. Commissioner Tuma: Okay. They are not currently owned by the same owner but they could be. Ms. Caporgno: That is correct. Commissioner Tuma: We can’t look at a scenario under which that would happen. Ms. Caporgno: No. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 14 of 71 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 2 Commissioner Sandas: Yes, I just wanted to clarify one more time. The two properties on E1 3 Camino, the Palo Alto Bowl property and the Mayflower Motel properties, being that they are 4 both zoned residential although the Mayflower does have a little bit of CS they are stuck right 5 now. They cannot redevelop. They can’t add an extra lane to the bowling alley or an extra room to the motel because of the way they zoned. So effectively changing the zoning to CS will allow for improvements. Ms. Caporgno: That is correct. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Two questions. First, I am a little confused why 4151 was included. I see the similarities of the other three properties. They are retail uses of some sort. What was the rationale for including 4151 as far as you know? And also given that it has a fairly new office building on it. Ms. Caporgno: The Council didn’t really evaluate these properties at all. We were asked to prepare a list of properties that were zoned and planned for residential but used for commercial purposes. We prepared the list and we went to Council. That night they decided to direct us to go forward with these rezonings but we never prepared any sort of- they didn’t have maps, they didn’t have any of the type of information you have. I think the list showed that there was an office building on the property but they didn’t have any aerial photo, they didn’t know the age of the building, or if they were familiar with it they would know but any information we gave them didn’t provide that kind of background information. So when they directed us to go through this process I think it was to investigate all these aspects and when it came back to them maybe some of these sites they would not feel were appropriate. That was the rationale behind it, this limited list. Mr. Williams: The other part of it as Julie mentioned a minute ago when this went to Council the Summerwinds Nursery and that Middlefield site were looked at as one site. At that time Staff didn’t realize they were actually two sites. It was presented as one site with San Antonio frontage and Middlefield frontage to the Council. Then later it became apparent that it is actually two different ownerships and two different sites. So we have kept the Middlefield one in. I think you are right that if we had gone forward and that had been shown as a separate site it is very possible that the Council would not have directed us to proceed with that. Commissioner Burt: Okay, that helps clarify that. My second question is that if these sites were rezoned CS would there be a potential for residential to be added on to the existing commercial? While I appreciate that parking may be the limiting factor but the scenarios that we looked at considered a rebuild that would take down the existing use. Is it feasible in these sites that we would simply have some additional residential added on and retention of the existing commercial in certain circumstances? Ms. Caporgno: I guess that is possible. With the Summerwinds site it might not be too feasible given the fact that this is a nursery and a bowling alley I don’t really know. There may be some City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 15 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 possibility with the motel to have a portion of it be residential and a portion of it be units. We have talked about doing that with hotels so there is that possibility. Commissioner Burt: The Palo Alto Bowl site? Ms. Caporgno: There is nothing that would preclude you from doing it I just don’t know if residential with a bowling alley is a good mix. Commissioner Burt: But if they are physically separated. Okay, great, thanks. Chair Holman: Seeing no other clarifying questions from the Commission I guess I will ask a couple just real brief ones. If for any reason and I am not suggesting this but if for any reason on a particular site, these are unusual sites in the ways that have been pointed out by Staff, if we wanted to restrict the uses on any one of these particular sites that is something that the Commission could entertain. Mr. Larkin: Right now you are restricted to the zoning that we have~ The CS zone has uses that are identified. IfY0u were going to amend the CS zoning then that would require a separate action to amend the code to change CS zoning. Mr. Williams: I think we have talked about and I guess you should weigh in here we do have some sections of codes and it is not necessarily the ideal situation where it actually says such and such an address is restricted in one way or another. It is mostly the nonconforming stuffbut is it possible to do that either relative to this address and say you couldn’t have these three uses or in the terms of standards that at this address the density would be ’x’ instead of 30 units per acre. That is what we talked about as far as the retail. If you are restricting it to just retail we would probably enumerate these sites under CS but indicate that no residential was allowed. Mr. Larkin: If the Commission was to make that recommendation we would have to look at ways to make that effective before it went to Council. Chair Holman: The other consideration is because these are difficult sites the Commission would have the ability to put the Site and Design overlay on these particular sites if we so desired due to the constraints and complexities of development on these sites. We took it off for El Camino where it had previously existed but we could if we wanted add the D Overlay for these sites. That is a question. Mr. Williams: I think that can be done for any site. I would point out that we only took it off in terms of mixed use for sites that had four or less units. So it is still on for mixed use if it is more than four units. So for nonresidential it wouldn’t be applied, for mixed use it would be applied if there were more than four units associated with the project. Chair Holman: Okay. For this property, 3981 E1 Camino Real the Mayflower Motel site, I have but three cards. So if anybody else wants to speak to this item they should turn their card in now. The first speaker and I apologize ifI get the last name incorrect. Diana Chien. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 16 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Diana Chien, Palo Alto: Thank you. I am the daughter of Mr. Charles Chien and Grace Chien she is my mother. She is not well tonight so she is not here with us tonight. I also have my brother-in-law David Whistle. Chair Holman: Before you begin I neglected to tell you that you have five minutes. Ms. Chien: Okay, thank you. I just want to first of all thank everyone here at the Commission and the Staff for doing a great job on the paper that was seen, the documents. Like Commissioner Sandas said, because our property is under some nonconforming restrictions and for 28 years my father has been trying to make improvements it has been very difficult for him. So we look forward actually to the rezoning if there is going to be a rezoning for our property. That is number one. Number two is that we read over the site summary and we are actually quite encouraged that the Staff agreed with us that our site is really more suitable for residential than retail. We are very encouraged that you feel that is actually the case and you feel that is true. Based on the prototype that we read we are quite encouraged. I just want to point out that we do have a problem with Attachment D on the existing zoning. About the fourth line down on Attachment D under the Existing Zoning and General Plan Designation, about the fourth line down, the front CS zone portion has an existing retail use and the rest of the property is used as a motel, I am not sure I understand what that is because we do not have an existing retail use on that property. The whole property is used as a motel. Maybe this is the reason when the third prototype residential use, if you look at the next page, that there is an example with a retail use already exists in the front CS, Service Commercial. As a result the example here you have Service Commercial in the front. We just want to point out the Service Commercial if it is going to be a retail use here the Staff is recommending underground parking for this particular segment. I think it is going to be very difficult because it is very expensive to install. That is all I wanted to point out to you that that might be a problem: But thank you very much for your attention. Thank you. Chair Holman: A question for you. Mr. Williams: Excuse me. We need to stop for a minute because this mike is broadcasting over in the Council Chambers. So we need to correct the technical difficulty. Perhaps she could step up close enough that those mikes can pick her up until we correct the problem. Chair Holman: There is a question for you. Commissioner Burt: My question is you mentioned that you have been an existing nonconforming use and consequently it has been difficult to do improvements. Ms. Chien: Yes. Commissioner Burt: I don’t know if you saw the part under our new CS zoning hotels are allowed up to a 2.0 floor area ratio. So if it stayed under its current use my understanding is that City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 17 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 now there would be significant opportunities to redo and expand. Is that something that creates an interesting opportunity for you that that zoning change occurred that would enable you to expand as a hotel? Ms. Chien: I think that is a possibility. My father is here. He feels because of the Palo Alto there are many hotels in the same area. The competition is very key. He felt strongly that the community is in need of multi-residential. Mr. Charles Chien, Palo Alto: In the past 20 years I tried to improve but because of the zoning I cannot do anything until today. Particularly the last ten years there are so many new hotels that have been built like the national chain hotels coming into the neighborhood. There are just too many already. So I don’t think it is for me to do anymore. You can see Colorado there are so many new hotels around my place. Chair Holman: Okay. Ms. Chien: The occupancy rate as you can see is suffering because of competition as well. So I think a motel might not be one. He is encourage that there is actual rezoning so that there is a possibility if not a motel then we can upgrade, make improvements. Right now, currently, he cannot do that. So the motel would stay exactly where it is at and it is very difficult. There is 1.47 acres and there are only 36 units so the revenue is very limited at this point. Chair Holman: I think another Commissioner had a question for you. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I just wanted to say thank you for your comments and I hope that your mother, and Charles your wife, recovers quickly from whatever is keeping her from being here tonight. Ms. Chien: Thank you, thank you very much. Chair Holman: The next speaker is Denny Petrosian to be followed by Bob Moss. Is that microphone fixed yet? Mr. Williams: No and it apparently isn’t going to be so I think we are going to have to speak up here. Chair Holman: Could we bring a chair up? You will have five minutes. Ms. Denny Petrosian, Palo Alto: I am very bothered by how we are just totally assuming that rezoning these properties, it is such a convoluted process that is going on here with the idea that we are going to get more retail, more commercial. It bothers me because I don’t think this has really been thought through. It is such a risky business. We don’t know what the market is going to do. We don’t know if these properties are going to develop the way the Council wants for retail. We do know that if we have more residents in town we are going to get more sales tax revenue. That is guaranteed. So I think that has not been thought through. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 18 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 I think the Council has this tunnel vision. They think rezoning is a golden egg. Well you know what happened to the goose and the golden eggs. I think what is really the golden egg is a more stable residential base to increase the customer base. So that is a general statement for all these properties. The second big point I think is that these Comprehensive Plan policies are ridiculously conflicting. If you read through we want to get more business, more retail, but then all these housing policies - increase density and diversity, encourage the development of affordable and attainable housing. How can we do that if we take standalone housing out of commercial districts and if we take away the zoning, the basic zoning to provide affordable housing? I think this ABAG issue is really important. Another thing that disturbs me is I am wondering was the input from the Housing Corporation solicited for this? We don’t really have a lot of experience with mixed use housing and especially mixed use with affordable housing. I think their input is critical. How feasible from their standpoint is it to get BMR and any kind ofaffordability at different income levels into this mixed use that we are fantasizing about? The specifically to the Mayflower site I think that compatibility, I think that is on Attachment D or wherever, there is a paragraph in there that says that mixed use would require, in my understanding of it, compatibility of the commercial with that rear housing and also the existing housing on the sides. Not only that but there is a playground. There is a huge community space behind this property that is used by daycare centers, the community and so forth. There has to be compatibility with that too. I think it would be much harder to achieve that if there was a deep commercial only development there. I think that there could be a very noxious use that would be very incompatible with fumes, or noise, or whatever. I think that you can’t guarantee what an all-commercial CS use would be there. So I think that you could have also totally non-revenue generating uses, storage facilities, vehicle yards, storage yards for various vehicles, or any number of things that CS permits. CS is wide open. I think it is important to look at that compatibility issue. Also, deep CS was ruled out for this area. This is essentially a thin strip of commercial on both sides of E1 Camino for residential neighborhoods that are very close by. So deep commercial was discouraged when this was all put in place. So I let’s think more deeply about what we are doing here and maybe the rezoning is really not the way to go. So ! guess I have probably said everything that I want to say. We don’t want a CS use that is going to degrade even the motels next door. If you have a big auto thing happening there that is going to make that area less attractive for people to stay in. There is a quite a nice motel right next door that could be adversely affected. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. The last speaker we have on this item is Bob Moss. Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: This is an interesting site. It has been looked at for really decades° I have seen at least three design attempts of how to redevelop it none of which ever happened. My take on the zoning on E1 Camino when they rezoned it originally in 1978 to add housing from Los Robles south is a lot of it has not worked out very well. I think that the recommendation to rezone this back to CS or actually CN would work just as well is reactionalo City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 19 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I think that the basic zoning and use on El Camino should remain primarily commercial. I don’t think we have to worry about doing things to encourage more housing. The housing is going to come in regardless. As you probably know housing eats City resources. I recall the article that Bern Beecham wrote where he came up with a figure of over $2,500 per unit negative impact on the City finances. That is consistent with what I have found previously and in fact in January Los Altos annexed some land up in the foothills with about 141 units. They had an estimate of $850 per unit net cost to the City and Los Altos doesn’t provide the same services we do. For example they don’t spend any city money for libraries, libraries are funded by the county for Los Altos. So that alone saves them $75 per unit. Having a commercial use does not prohibit housing they can have a mixed use development. So they could put that in there as the Staff Report shows. Based on the designs that I have seen before this is a deep lot along El Camino. If you go on the Barron Park side those lots are typically 100 to 125 feet deep. This is deep enough so that you could actually do some real development. You could have some good retail on the front of the lot and have a transition to the back, which was compatible with the existing housing in the Ventura neighborhood. So I think of all the sites you are looking at this is probably the easiest to say is compatible with a CS or CN zone. In terms of whether motels are viable and needed we have lot a lot of hotel rooms in the last year. Obviously hotels are of interest because one just opened in East Palo Alto, they were going to build one in Menlo Park near Sandhill Road, and Stanford is now talking about building a hotel in the shopping center area. So there is obviously a need for more hotel rooms. If we have the economy the way we had five or six years ago those hotel rooms are all going to be filled. So I think it is a reaction that is appropriate and I think the zoning should be approved. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Seeing no other cards on this site I will return to the Commission for any questions. Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: I just want to make a statement rather than ask a question. Just to mention that under this CS zoning when we have a mixed residential use alternative, say hypothetically speaking in general on all four of the sites more housing units would fit in mixed use rather than the RM zoning that they are already zoned. So in a nutshell once again this CS provides flexibility for the development of those properties. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a question for Staff. On the last chart that you showed, the mixed use component, you are showing a commercial orange building out towards the street and then you are showing the high-density residential portion in the middle and then the lower density towards the back. Currently there is feathered zoning on that parcel where it is commercial out near the street. How would that work in terms of if we were rezoning the entire parcel now so that it is going to be CS as proposed? What would be the guarantee that somebody who developed this site would actually follow something similar to what the feathered zone proposal is? What if they decided that no, they didn’t want to put the commercial portion up in the front? What if they decided they actually wanted to integrate all the commercial into the site? Ms. Moitra: They can do that. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 20 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. Capor~no: I think they could do that. There is nothing that would preclude them from doing that. From everything that we have heard that is not reasonable because obviously the retail element wants to have that frQntage. If there is something that could be developed where they put it towards the end it wouldn’t be precluded but I just don’t think it would be reasonable to expect that. Vice-Chair Lippert: The reason I ask that question is that the current zoning that you have where you have the three zones already there allow for a prototype that is similar to what is desirable. Ms. Caporgno: They basically have mixed use on the property if you look at the property as a whole right now. They have horizontal mixed use because they the frontage piece which is CS and then the rear portions or residential. This would give them more flexibility because they could develop it totally retail. They would be able to retain the motel for awhile and maybe make improvements on the motel if they wanted to before the decided to redevelop the site. Then in the future they could redevelop it either with the feathered zoning as you indicated or with maybe a different type of housing mix on the rear portions. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: When you were doing your community outreach and having these meetings the first question is were you talking to the community about CS or were you talking generally about converting it to commercial? Ms. Caporgno: We didn’t talk about any particular zoning district. We told them the possibilities. When we had the community meeting we hadn’t made a recommendation at that time, So we were there really to get their feedback. We had the prototypes that showed the CS and the reason we used the CS was because it had more impact, more uses, and more or greater intensity than the CN. So we were trying to show the maximum development potential impacts that could be on each site. Commissioner Tuma: I can ask this question in the context of each individual property if the answers were different but if the answer is the same maybe we can answer it all at once, which was with respect to this property what was the community feedback? Maybe you could summarize that. If it was different for each one let’s talk about each one separately but if you would summarize it consistently then that’s fine too. Ms. Caporgno: I think I can d0it for all of them because it was kind of hard to gauge in the sense of there wasn’t a lot of- it was more they were interested in what we had presented. I think there was some concern about housing on the properties. The property owners that were in attendance some of them objected to the rezoning but generally speaking people were there more to get information to learn about it. It wasn’t that they had real definite opinions about what should or shouldn’t go in. Commissioner Tuma: Which of the properties did the owners object to? City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 21 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Capor~no: At the time the property owners for the Mayflower Motel had concerns about the rezoning. The property owner for the Summerwinds site had concerns. The other two property owners were in attendance at the meeting but didn’t say an~hing. Commissioner Tuma: They were in attendance? Ms. Caporgno: They were, representatives of all four property owners were in attendance at the meeting. We met with them all separately also. The Palo Alto Bowl site when we had met with the property owners for that site they didn’t want to be restricted to retail only but they didn’t seem to have, I don’t want to say that they were supportive, but at the time they were willing to consider commercial zoning on the property. Retail only was too restrictive as far as they were concerned. The representative for the office building owner, who was his daughter actually, had indicated that he would be supportive of the CS in fact it would make his use a conforming use and he planned on retaining that office building for a long time. He would object to retail because then he would still be a nonconforming use. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: The first thing I want to do is clarify these aren’t necessarily recommendations. Ms. Caporgno: No, I was trying to stress that. We asked one of our consultants to prepare prototypes given the development standards for the different types of land uses. We just wanted to give you some idea as to what could be on the properties because we felt describing them to you if you didn’t have the benefit of seeing them we thought the visual aid would be helpful. Commissioner Garber: The City has done some work on hotel vacancies have they not? Is there a synopsis that is quick and easy for us to understand? Mr. Williams: I don’t know much detail. I know that last week I was in a meeting where it was portrayed that hotel vacancies generally, and this is across the entire city, are about 25 percent so about 75 percent occupied now which is up from 58 percent or something like that a few years ago. So it is steadily rising and it is now at about 75 percent. Commissioner Garber: The occupancy? Mr. Williams: The occupancy is about 75 percent. Commissioner Burt: I’m sorry. IfI might add almost all of that gain I believe has been in the past year. Mr. Williams: A lot of it. I think it has spiked and it so it is probably higher than that at some of the newer hotels and lower than that at some of the older ones depending on what condition they are in. City of Palo Alto December ~ 2006 Page 22 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: The graphic in Attachment D, the blue stripe, is that what is indicating the feathered zoning area? Ms. Moitra: That is the CS zone Mr. Williams: That is CS zoning. Commissioner Garber: So on the properties that are adjacent, it is hard to read, maybe 30 or 45 there is a red line that goes through there is that a property line or are those properties that have two zones on them? Ms. Moitra: That is the zoning boundary. Commissioner Garber: So it is just the zoning boundary it is not a property boundary. The zoning separates the same parcel. Mr. Williams: This is the property. Commissioner Garber: I was just clarifying that we have single properties that have two zones in them. Is that any issue for the City one way or another? Does it matter? Is there any real impact to that occurring? Ms. Caporgno:. Do you mean for one property having more than one zone? Commissioner Garber: Yes. Ms. Caporgno: I don’t think so. The point was to identify I think when it was originally zoned kind of the intensity for the three different types of land use the commercial frontage. I think what we were trying to do was create a mixed use without a mixed use zone district. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Let me just remind folks that it seems practical to have a lot of people at the table but also be mindful about paper rustling. Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: Just a quick question. So the two parcels on E1 Camino, 4329 and 3981, are both in looking at the three different scenarios under the CS commercial alternative big box stores could likely go there. You would have these pictures of big huge stores. But a second question I have is regarding auto dealerships. In order to put an auto dealership somewhere does it have to have the AD overlay or can it be put in the CS? Mr. Williams: No. Ms. Capor~no: It could go in the CS zone it is just the AD encourages an auto dealer. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 23 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Sandas: Right, okay. Just asking. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The first thing is I did renew my membership in nitpickers anonymous and so I am going, to point out that figure on Attachment D, Site Map of Existing Zoning, the boundaries of this parcel are actually shifted and should be the part that is the lower right hand of this boundary should actually be even with the redline I think. The upper left hand portion of the boundary should be even with the line that surrounds RM-40 so it basically should be shifted up. I would encourage you to fix that when you give this to Council so that they do not get similarly confused. I am wondering to what extent any nearby property owners have weighed in on the issues of rezoning this particular property. Mr. Williams: What nearby property owners commented on this? Ms. Caporgno: We haven’t received anything. Ms. Moitra: We have not received anything for this property. Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. Ms. Caporgno: I just want to add that we did notice everyone within 600 feet. Chair Holman: I assume you did. Ms. Caporgno: So they should be aware. Chair Holman: I am just curious whether you heard anything back. Now, this property seems to have two kinds of immediate neighbors. I am just going to call it the south if you may, which is Jacob’s Court, is separated from this property by a culvert. Is that correct? So there is some sort of drainage in this property, which separates it from the residential use over there, providing some separation. In addition because of that culvert it is not possible to reach this property from El Camino Way. So that is the southern side if you think of towards Mountain View on El Camino as being south. To the north of this what is the use of 3945 El Camino Real? Ms. Moitra: That is another motel. Chair Holman: Does that motel go all the way back to the Ventura Community Center? Commissioner Garber: Can I just clarify that though? The use is actually R-1 and CS. Is that correct? City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 24 of 71 1 Ms. Caporgno: Well, the zoning yes. 2 3 Commissioner Garber: But the use is different. 4 5 Commissioner Keller: I think that is not R-1. I think it is RM-30. 6 7 Ms. Capor~no: Yes, RM-30. 8 9 Commissioner Keller: So the rear of 3945 is a motel and it has also some sort of feathered 10 zoning if you will or split zoning or whatever you want to call it except instead of three pieces it 11 is two pieces. 12 13 Ms. Moitra: Yes. 14 15 Commissioner Keller: Therefore when the City Council is looking at this based on our 16 recommendations they might want to identify whether the adjacent parcel has some of the same 17 problems that this one has. 18 19 Ms. Caporgno: I would just like to elaborate. When we were asked by the Council to identify 20 all the sites with the existing residential zoning and land use designations and commercial use. 21 The City of Palo Alto does not have an existing land use database. So we compiled this list by 22 using an expanded list of Housing Inventory sites that we hoped had addressed all of the sites 23 that were planned an zoned for housing. Unfortunately this wasn’t on that list. Then we pulled 24 from our GIS and looked at motel sites on E1 Camino but we pulled them up by address and 25 unfortunately that one adjacent to the Mayflower Motel didn’t come up in any of those three 26 analyses and we found out afterward. There are three other sites throughout the city that we 27 found that are planned and zoned for residential and are used for commercial. We are going to 28 be going back to Council probably early in 2007 to ask them if they want to initiate rezonings on 29 those also. So the adjacent site could very well have the same rezoning and will probably go 30 through the same process that this site is going through. 31 32 Chair Holman: In other words, if we had a business registry this probably would not have 33 happened. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: Right. Something about the idea of having a database that contains the 36 use of properties is that we had a whole bunch of discussions in the earlier Zoning Ordinance 37 Update that involve residential uses within nonresidential zones. To the extent that there was a 38 registry that indicated which parcels had residential uses within nonresidential zones it would 39 allow for that enforcement of those rules as well. So in some sense some database that 40 maintained the uses of parcels would actually provide multiple purposes there. I would certainly 41 encourage that. So I think that is it for now. 42 43 Chair Holman: I think it is Commissioner Burt next. 44 45 Commissioner Burt: One of the reasons that I was previously trying to make sure I had a 46 moderate understanding of the Council’s intention here is because I am not sure that this City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 25 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 proposal would have the outcome that they had hoped for. As it is currently zoned the residential ¯ w°uld be up to 35 units allowable on this property and with the CS zone it would actually increase the residential above that and add a commercial bonus. That commercial bonus, only a minority of that needs to be retail and none of it needs to be hotel, which is from the City’s revenue standpoint the current most desirable and valued part of the way this parcel is developed. So I suspect that we are setting up a circumstance that would create an even greater incentive to flip the property and do it not necessarily with a significant retail component. So I am not quite sure whether it meets the objectives the Council was looking toward. We have a separate question of course of what do we, as a Commission think would be good zoning for this site. If we can separate the two issues what did the Council do and why did they initiate this process that we have before us tonight versus what we might consider to be the ideal zoning for the parcel. I am not sure those two things are very well aligned in the proposals. I was looking through the other options CN is another alternative and if you look under note four this is on a page that is Table 4, the second page. In fact on El Camino CN does allow a 1.0 FAR instead of the .9 that is normally in CN and it is the same proportion of .4 FAR for nonresidential and .6 for residential as you would have in CS. So on El Camino CN and CS are only differentiated a couple of ways as I see it. One is a 40-foot height limit under CN versus 50 for CS. Neither of those heights would apply within 150 feet of residential. There was one other small difference. Then I tried to figure out the housing sizes that might exist because under CN there are 15 units per acre and I would appreciate it if Staff would correct me ifI get any of this wrong because it is a bit technical. My understanding is that under CN there are 15 units per acre and CS has 30 units per acre. Well, this parcel if it were all rezoned either CS or CN it is about 64,000 square feet times .4 FAR for residential results in about 25,600 square feet of residential and then you divide that by either 15 units per acre which would be 22 units under CN or twice that number, 44 potential units, under the CS and you can have some sense if they maxed out the residential FAR and maxed out the number of units, which would not necessarily be what a developer would want to do. It is not necessarily the best return. We would have housing units under the CN that might around a maximum average of 1,700 square feet, no excuse me I was going round and round on that math. Well we will figure that out. I’ll leave those details for Arthur. So the bottom line is that I am struggling with what would be the impact and if one of the Council’s motivations my sense was to slow down some of this flipping of valued commercial property from existing units to residential. If instead what we are doing is creating a circumstance of creating incentives to accelerate the flipping to just as much residential but adding commercial and that commercial would not necessarily be very much revenue generating. I am not sure that is what their hope was. Mr. Williams: Can I clarify a couple of pieces? I think those are good points and certainly in terms of specifically the number of units that could be placed on the property potentially being more under the CS than under the exi sting zoning I just wanted to clarify that under the recently adopted CS zone or the CN for that matter that mixed use cannot occur unless you have this minimum threshold of commercial development which is. 15 FAR. So there is a minimum amount and that has to be commercial being retail, eating or drinking establishments, personal City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 26 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 services. So there is some limitation there that there does need to be some level of revenue producing use on the site in order to trigger the allowance for mixed use. Commissioner Burr: Right. So it would basically be 15 percent of the floor area that would be developed would need to be revenue producing whereas right now 100 percent of what we have basically is revenue producing. Mr. Williams: No, not 15 percent, 15 percent floor area ratio so that is almost half of the 40 percent that you are allowed in commercial. A .40 is the allowable maximum amount of commercial floor area ratio. What we are saying is a .15 FAR for the site has to be in commercial so it is almost half of the .40. Commissioner Burt: Yes, but what I was saying was 15 percent of the total floor area that is the residential and commercial combined. Mr. Williams: Okay, I see, that is correct. Yes. Commissioner Burt: So out of the 1.0 FAR that would be allowed to be built .15 FAR would need to be essentially retail. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma, you had a follow up to that? Commissioner Tuma: Yes. Do we know currently let’s say for the last whatever reportable period what the revenue to the City is from this particular site the way it is currently used? Mr. Williams: We do but that is ..... Mr. Larkin: That information is confidential. So we wouldn’t be able to share that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Actually, my follow up is exactly germane to what Commissioner Tuma just said. I went to the August 7 meeting and I heard the discussions there. At that meeting it was disclosed that the overwhelming majority of Transient Occupancy Tax, TOT funds, comes from the big hotels. Very little of it comes from these small hotels. The big six or however many there are produce 75 to 80 to 90 percent of the revenue and very little of it comes from these little hotels even if you think of it on a per room basis. So therefore the amount of revenue that comes from this place in terms of a hotel is relatively minor is my understanding from that meeting. One other thing that I would like to point out that is a follow up is that in fact the average daily room rate, the ADR rate, for the major hotels in Palo Alto actually went up when the Hyatt closed. You might think that that’s in part because of the fact there is less high-end space when the Hyatt was there. Well actually because the Hyatt has a high-end name but it wasn’t a high- end property it had to have lower rates to attract people to it and the lower rate that the Hyatt had was actually anti-competitive with respect to the other properties which had to lower their rate in City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 27 of 71 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 order to compete with the Hyatt in some sense. So by low-end Hyatt closing it actually increased 2 the ADR rates from the other properties. Now I am not commenting about the quality of the 3 Mayflower rooms but the issue is that there are different tiers of motel space and the Mayflower 4 doesn’t directly compete with the hotels like the Sheraton or whatever but the Hyatt did. So I 5 just want to point out that piece of information just so people would be aware of exactly how this fits together. Finally, there wouldn’t be .15 FAR in this case if we rezone this to CS or CN ifa .15 FAR applied to the entire site. Currently CS only applies to the front of the site, which is much smaller, and therefore the amount of commercial that is actually required is .4 of a tiny thing. I can’t do the math because I don’t know the size of the small part but .4 of a tiny thing is probably comparable to. 15 of the big thing. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. I’m sorry, Curtis. Mr. Williams: I can clarify. As Don said, there is proprietary information here so we can’t get into specifics but I can on an aggregate basis. The attorneys and the finance people have told me that I can tell you that I looked at the TOT for all the hotels and there are about 25 motels along South El Camino Real, these older motels, and out of a total of something like 40 total hotels in the city, 40 or 50 hotels total in the city, and those 25 hotels the aggregate revenue from those was like 20 percent of the total, If you took out two or three of them there is about six percent or something like that. So overall I think what Commissioner Keller has said is accurate in terms of their contribution to the total TOT. Commissioner Tuma: That answers my question too. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I would like just to make an overall comment, which is that first of all I think the fiscalization of land use makes for very bad land use decisions. When you think in terms of dollars or revenue being generated as sales tax for a city that is really not what I think is appropriate here. What is appropriate here is to look at the zoning and be able to say gee, we are creating a nice harmonious environment that works in the city, that provides certain needs, that builds good communities, that are smart growth principles here. When you look at dollars and say wow, we really need those dollars in order to be able to pay the city coffers we are looking short term we are not looking long term. Just five years ago this economy was booming and we had a budget surplus in this city. I would like to think that those times will come again but it really shouldn’t be predicated on the land use decisions that we are making here. Twenty years ago, maybe it was longer than that, back in the late 1970s the Planning Commission made a recommendation and the City Council affirmed that which was to start rezoning sites along E1 Camino Real as residential. ! think the point is that those were ?very bad decisions that were made. I remember Rodolfo’s Pizzeria diagonally across the street, which was a great neighborhood place that defined Barron Park. It doesn’t exist any more and in its place is an apartment complex that I don’t know how many housing units are there but only 25 families use. By the same token the dynamics of the shopping center across the City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 28 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 street has changed and we now have a Blockbuster video there versus a neighborhood shopping center. This is a pivotal intersection in that part of E1 Camino Real. So I think it is very desirable to have this mixed use zoning or this CS zoning which will allow for the best of both worlds which is some commercial that will help fortify the other commercial that is along E1 Camino Real as well as being able to build additional housing. So it bridges the gap between what was the concept 30 years ago and reinforcing what is currently there. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I would like to agree entirely with what Commissioner Lippert said and in particular one of the principles ofPalo Alto’s walkable communities. So the extent that we build housing without any retail services for them we are forcing them to drive somewhere else. So to the extent that a restaurant can go in there, or a small grocery store can go in this retail space it provides services that the people who move into the neighborhood, who are already moving into the neighborhood can shop there. So therefore I think that the principle of mixed use makes a lot of sense. I would like to offer a motion. Chair Holman: You can but I would like to make some comments too. Commissioner Keller: How about ifI wait until you give your comments? Chair Holman: That would be great. Well, go ahead and make the motion. MOTION Commissioner Keller: I would like to move to accept the Staff recommendation for this in particular that the parcel at 3981 El Camino Real be rezoned and that it be rezoned to CS and that it not be retail only. Chair Holman: Looking for a second. SECOND Commissioner Garber: Second. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, would you are to speak to your motion? Commissioner Keller: I think that this property is part of a collection of properties that are commercial, that this segment of El Camino Real is not really a residential zone, and that the current zoning on this property has hampered the owners in terms of improving their property to the detriment of the city and the property owners. I think that this is an excellent location where mixed use would make a lot of sense and would allow for this property to be potentially redeveloped in the future to the betterment of this district. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 29 of 71 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, would you care to speak to your second? 2 3 Mr. Larkin: We are also asking you to make a recommendation to adopt the Negative 4 Declaration if you could incorporate that into your motion. 5 Commissioner Keller: I incorporate that we adopt a Negative Declaration for CEQA purposes. Will you accept that as the second? Commissioner Garber: I certainly will. Chair Holman: What about amending the Comp Plan? Do you want that as part of the same motion? Mr. Larkin: Yes. Commissioner Keller: And make the Staff’s recommendation in terms of the amendments to the ~ Comp Plan accordingly. Commissioner Garber: Agreed. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Much has been said the CS zoning of this particular property would help stitch the continuation of the CS zone all along E1 Camino Real which is important for the city and streetscape. The combined use allows not only the existing use to be incorporated intoa conforming zoning but also will address the various forces that at play allowing for both retail, commercial potentially, and the housing potentially as well. What the site really needs is vision. It is actually a very dynamic site there are a lot of opportunities for it to contribute back to the community not that it lacks complexity, it does, but that really means that there is a tremendous opportunity for the community to benefit from its redevelopment. Chair Holman: Okay. I haven’t said too much about this and I guess my thoughts are somewhere along the lines of Commissioner Burt’s for some of the same and also some additional reasons. This is a good size lot and the nonresidential potential on this lot is basically 26,000 square feet. What I struggled with enormously when we were looking at the commercial zones is the. 15 retail. I struggled with that a lot because I thought was a very small amount. This parcel has the potential for a lot more service to this area. I wish I could wave a magic wand and say exactly what I thought the percentage of retail ought to be for this site but I am thinking it ought to be more than. 15. In looking at whatever we do with the adjacent parcels that are also these large parcels I think we ought to also consider something greater than the. 15 FAR. So I look forward to other comments from other Commissioners and as the motion stands right now I won’t be able to support it. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: You are not supporting it because it doesn’t have enough retail under the CS zone? City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 30 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: This is correct. Commissioner Garber: Is there a possibility of a friendly amendment if that were rethought for increasing that if that were allowable? Chair Holman: It went to my question earlier of City Attorney how we might do that. Mr. Larkin: We don’t at this point have an agenda item of changing the underlying CS zoning ordinance. There may be some possibility of changing the underlying housing in the mixed use component but changing the percentage of retail in the CS zone is probably not something that could done tonight. Chair Holman: I am not talking about the whole zone overall I am talking about ..... Mr. Larkin: I would have a concern about spot zoning a single particular site to say that this particular site has to have a different CS zone than the others. I have some concerns about doing that although it is something that if the Commission were to recommend taking an action that would involve that we would look at that and if possible bring that to City Council but we have to look at the possibility of doing that. Chair Holman: A couple of thoughts about that are there is at least one adjacent parcel and two parcels don’t eliminate the spot zoning aspect. I don’t know what the legal constraints are or considerations might be because these are unusual parcels and that is why we are looking at them. Mr. Larkin: In this case we can’t do anything about the adjacent motel parcel because that is not something that is agendized for a zone change. Chair Holman: Understood. Understood, not tonight but... Mr. Larkin: If the direction was to come back with a different zoning proposal then we would be able to do that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: That being the case, the only way to increase the amount of retail would be to do an all retail zone. Commissioner Sandas: Right. Under the CS the opportunity to have 100 percent retail in that parcel is there. You don’t have to rezone it, it is CS and you can have complete retail. Mr. Larkin: The only zone that prohibits mixed use currently is General Manufacturing and I don’t think there is any suggestion that it be rezoned to General Manufacturing. Chair Holman: No. Go ahead, Commissioner Garber. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 31 of 71 1 Commissioner Garber: I was just going to say I also wouldn’t see this parcel becoming all retail 2 because I don’t think that would present the right opportunities to integrate it into the community 3 both on the commercial side, on the residential side, and the sort of feathery zone in between the 4 two. So I am not sure there is a good compromise there. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Earlier when we were given the options to consider for these four parcels one of the questions was whether or not the parcel should have retail only. My understanding is that CS zone does not currently as it is written have an option for retail only. Therefore to the extent that we could make a decision - so my interpretation and I am not the lawyer, is that if we had the option to say that we wanted retail only and that option were not considered spot zoning then the option to say for this particular parcel and perhaps some other ones tonight, I could imagine some other parcels might satisfy similar criteria- one or more other parcels might satisfy similar criteria to have a similar kind of expansion and thereby the same logic that will allow us to say retail only would be the same logic, from my point of view, that will allow us to say this parcel would be .25 minimum FAR for retail. Mr. Larkin: Retail only would probably require us to do something different than what Staff is proposing to do which is take the recommendations to Council and adopt the rezoning. We would probably have to come back with a new zoning designation that would allow retail only. It would prolong the process but it would be something that if that was the Commission’s recommendation we would do. If the Commission said we want this to be retail only then we would probably be returning to the Commission with new zoning designations, it wouldn’t be CS or CN, if neither of those is a retail only zone. Commissioner Keller: So isn’t that the same case if we said CS with a .25 FAR overlay for retail wouldn’t that be the same thing? Mr. Larkin: That is probably correct. We would probably have to make those zoning changes so we couldn’t implement that tonight and pass it on to City Council. We would have go back to the drawing board. Commissioner Keller: But we could make a motion to that effect, is that correct? Mr. Larkin: You could make a recommendation to that effect and then we would have to either restart the process or we would go forward to Council with a negative recommendation from the Commission on the action. That would probably be Staff’s choice of action. So either come back to the Commission redo our zones or go to Council saying the Commission recommends denying the rezone but doing this instead. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert and then Commissioner Sandas. Vice-Chair Lippert: I would try to persuade my colleague here to support the motion only from the point of view that if we left the underlying zoning it makes it very difficult for the current owner to be able to do anything with the site currently. It is pretty much going to wind up being City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 32 of 71 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 a hodge-podge or a mix of development that is not going to be terribly pleasing or compatible. So what I am trying to say is don’t sort of throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we have a problem with the CS zoning ordinance itself maybe what we need to do is go back and look at that at another time. Let’s not try to keep all these balls in the air at once. Let’s deal with the ones that we currently have. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: I am sorry I just lost my train of thought. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma and then I will come back to you. Commissioner Tuma: A follow up to Commissioner Lippert’s comment because I was actually thinking a similar thing. The question would be how quickly could we do something like that? How quick could we go back and look at the CS zone across the city? Mr. Williams: We just got done adopting it. It is not even effective until the 20th. I am sorry we don’t have Rick Williams here again but he would convince you all over again why. 15 was an appropriate number. If you do retail on this site, an all retail project, you are probably going to be .15 or .20 because the parking is going to take up the rest of the site. That is the reality of it unless you can somehow do a two-story retail or if you can go underground with the parking or two-story parking or something like that which usually retail doesn’t justify. I think we would be back to that discussion again. I agree with Don as far as the mechanism goes. If the Commission wanted to on any or all of these sites go in the direction of having either more retail or another thing I heard maybe as an option is less residential then I think it should be something where we move forward with that recommendation to the Council. Then we would have to come back and rather than amending the entire CS ordinance we would have to create kind of a sub- zone or sub-district of CS that has those characteristics and apply it to two or three sites or whatever it would end up being. Chair Holman: Let me be very clear I was not suggesting that we go back and look at the whole of CS. That was not my intention. Commissioner Sandas, has it come back to you? Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Well I have been struggling with a couple of aspects of this proposal. One I would just like to comment that some of the discussions that we have had about these smaller hotels are predominantly discussions of looking backward over the last three or four years, not looking further back than that, and not looking forward from that very much. When we had the Internet bubble all the hotels in town were booked to the gills and they were at high occupancies and comparatively high rates for what level of rooms they were. So this and the other smaller hotels along El Camino were much higher revenue generators. On a positive trend line on hotels the other point is going forward is we have only recently adopted this 2.0 FAR for hotels in these zones and we have created a new incentive and we haven’t heard or seen what impact, we have heard anecdotally that there are parcels that are being looked at seriously to take advantage of that FAR bonus for hotels. That doesn’t mean all these small hotels are going to be candidates for that. So I don’t dismiss so lightly the revenue from the small hotels. An average one might City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 33 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 be $75,000 a year in revenue. On the other hand, Commissioner Lippert’s point is we don’t want to fiscalize land use is an important one but perhaps a little bit overstated. Economic impacts are one of the factors that we do not only need to consider they are part of our mandate to consider. They just shouldn’t be the foremost and certainly not the only consideration. So then I look at this retail question, which is one I was struggling with. My ballpark is that it would be about 9,600 square feet of retail. The frontage on El Camino is about 130 feet wide. That is a pretty good size amount of retail for that width of a frontage on E1 Camino. That is not a small retail development at 9,600 it is not huge but it is not small. Chair Holman: Can I get clarification on that? At 2,600 square feet of nonresidential I did .15 and is my math incorrect, I can up with 4,100 not 9,600? Is my math wrong? Commissioner Burt: The entire parcel is 64,000 times .15 FAR. Mr. Williams: You are taking. 15 times the allowable commercial. Chair Holman: Nonresidential. Mr. Williams: No, it is .15 of the entire. Commissioner Burt: It is .15 of the total FAR. Chair Holman: Okay. Commissioner Burt: So it is about 9,600 of retail on a lot 130 feet wide. If you look at this table it is a little wider than this table is long but the proportion is sort of like that. We are going to have the retail out at the front here ifI am on E1 Camino and that is pretty sizable retail at the front of this parcel. The other thing I was looking at was leaving the existing zoning alone because unlike the other proposals that we have this one actually does have commercial zoning on that frontage as it is. They haven’t used it for retail but that is the way it is zoned. So if they were to flip this parcel they would be required to have retail on that front parcel and then the back would be residential. I am not sure that is the better design. So having weighed all those things in principle I still don’t want to give up on all of these small hotels along El Camino and throw in the towel there. I think on this site, all things considered, I am inclined to support the proposal that this CS is the best zoning for this particular site. Commissioner Sandas: This wasn’t it but I thought of something else. I just wanted to throw in my support for the motion as well. When I first read through my packet it seemed obvious to me that CS is a very flexible zoning, it gives the community a lot of options, it gives whoever is developing the piece of property a lot of options that can benefit the community, and also one of the things that I think is also important about it is that the range of options is there. One of the things, and of course we know that this most likely wouldn’t happen for a variety of reasons, a City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 34 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 big store can go there. We have been trying to zone for Fry’s for a long time and maybe we found an alternative. Not that I think that it would play out but CS zoning does create options. So I am in support of Arthur Keller’s motion. Chair Holman: Mr. Lippert, did you have another comment? Vice,Chair Lippert: I just want to follow up on Commissioner Burt’s comment with regard to economics. I was not implying that economics should not be a consideration here only that fiscalization of land use in terms of sales tax revenue generated I don’t think is necessarily appropriate. If we were to look at that then what we are really looking at is things like why do we limit retail establishments to 40,000 square feet under one whole retail tenant? We currently do that. The Fry’s site right now is in peril because of that. We need to make a decision that that’s the appropriate use for that site, and it is the appropriate zoning for that site, and not really look at the overall tax benefits that come out of that. Then one other point that I wanted to make with regard to the hotel issue is that at the height of the dot.corn boom the Cabana hotel went and parsed offa whole section of their property and rezoned that and did a development that was residential R-1 development. If in fact there was a need for more hotel they would have expanded there, in addition to that the Hyatt Rickey’s site gone - another hotel site. We do have a need for it but we are talking about such a small site here by comparison to what our needs are and we need to look at the big picture. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber you had a quick thing and then Commissioner Keller and then I’d like to try to wrap this up. Commissioner Garber: I was only going to join Commissioner Lippert’s encouragement to have our Chair join only to suggest that the art of zoning isn’t a perfect one. If you look for what is across the city on a larger as opposed to focusing in on the parcel zoning is not going to always fit perfectly. To Commissioner Burt’s point it fits pretty well here.. Would it be nicer if there were a little bit more retail? I suspect the answer is yes but I suspect that this is in terms of stitching together how the zoning works and should work in that portion of the city I think it is the right move to do. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, you had a comment? Commissioner Keller: Yes. Certainly the current zoning doesn’t have very much retail in it because the CS portion of the parcel is the front portion. Considering setbacks and the fact that there is a percentage of that which could be mixed use you could get quite a small amount of commercial use indeed for the current zoning. In fact, I wonder whether under the current zoning somebody could just simply build a large residential property to the back in the RM-40 and RM-30 zones and in the commercial zone put a large parking lot. I am wondering if that is legal and it probably is and that is probably not what we want either. I think this is much closer to what we would want and I was somewhat concerned when we voted in the ,15 on the CS zone in terms of whether that one size fits all but we were told that we have to basically provide a number that is a minimum and hopefully it will be exceeded but we can’t force that. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 35 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: In my own defense here I certainly had never presumed or hopefully insinuated that I would support keeping the existing zoning. It is rather a hodge-podge. I guess my concern is as we look for sites to have more retail and a larger single facility albeit grocery stores or any number of other things there aren’t that many opportunities. I learned yesterday that there were some other sites, I didn’t realize one of them was right next to this, that we might be looking at as well. I guess I would feel more comfortable if we were looking at the adjacent sites at the same time if those are ones we are going to be looking at in the future and looking to see what the best use is for those and how they might accomplish some of our larger goals for the community in terms of retail or community services. So it is a tough call for me and I think just not to be a contrarian but at the same time to just hold it out there that say maybe some Council Members when they are reading this will look at this and say maybe there is some other considerations here I am going to vote against the motion. So with that we will close the public hearing on this item too. We will call the question. MOTION PASSED (6-1-0-0, Commissioner Holman voted against) So all those in favor of the motion as previously stated to adopt the Negative Declaration for 3981 El Camino Real, the current site of the Mayflower Motel, and to adopt the recommendation to change the zoning to CS, Service Commercial, and to adopt the resolution, Attachment B, to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation to Service Commercial, all those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed would be me. So that passes on a six to one vote. Mr. Larkin: It is past the point in our meeting that I am supposed to do this but I thought it was better to wrap up this first item. The Commission needs to reach a consensus as to whether or not it will raise the four items on the agenda, we are through number one, the Commission needs to make a decision if they intend to get to all of the other three matters tonight and if so, if they would consider bringing those after ten o’clock. I anticipate that the other ones will go more quickly but since I am supposed to ask the question I am asking it now. Chair Holman: My inclination would be to think that the others would go more quickly because we vetted a lot of the issues on this item. Do other Commissioners think that we can undertake all four or the other three items tonight? Do Commissioners think we can get to all of the other three tonight? Okay. Given that why don’t we take a five-minute break and we will reconvene: If we could reconvene. The next item we will undertake is 4151 Middlefield Road. Staff has brought it up over here on the larger visuals. I have one card coming for that. Also if Edward Freiberg is here he wanted to make a general comment. Did he leave? Okay. So one speaker for 4151 Middlefield Road. Bob Moss. Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: This is kind of an odd situation. Apparently nobody realizes it but that building was just sold for a little over $4.0 million. Obviously the guy who bought it new what it was and figured gee, it is an office building, we are making money on it so he’s put that money into it. If you look at the use of the building and the impact on the neighborhood keeping it as a commercial type use seems perfectly reasonable. So I think the rezoning to CS or something similar is perfectly appropriate. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 36 of 71 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 It is kind of an aside, I notice some of the letters talking about rezoning both this and the nursery 2 some of the neighbors were complaining that gee, if you rezone from RM-15 it is going to have a 3 terrible impact on the neighbors. That would certainly apply to this office building. I would like 4 to remind everybody that the office building and the nursery existed before those condos existed. 5 They were there in the early 1970s. So all we are talking about doing is keeping the existing use, 6 the existing type of operation. I never noticed any particular problem in that area. The traffic 7 counts that Staff has and keeping the office building does not create a particular problem for 8 traffic. So I think keeping this in its current use and rezoning it, taking off the RM-15 is perfectly rational. I suggest you go ahead and do that. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Okay. Go ahead and speak to us and then you can fill out a card. Ms. Ellen Fletcher, Palo Alto: This office building is actually adjacent to single family and across the street from single family. It really isn’t quite adjacent to San Antonio because next to it is part of the nursery and part of the gas station. So it really isn’t at the corner. The R-1 was there long before the office building too as far as I know because those houses aren’t new. Anyway, I didn’t think Service Commercial is appropriate for that site because of all the residential around it. Thank you. Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions for Staff?. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Do you happen to know how tall the existing building is on that site? Ms. Moitra: It is a two story. Commissioner Garber: Maybe in the range of 20 to 25 feet, Chair Holman: I would think more like 25 than 20. Ms. Caporgno: Probably 25. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: This isn’t a question it is an effort at perhaps accelerating the process on this particular parcel if the Commissioners agree with me. I would argue that if we think that the current use is an appropriate use the best way to retain it that way would be to keep the existing zoning with this use as a permissible nonconforming use. If we change the zoning to the CS then we create a sizable incentive to tear this down and put in a big mixed use project. That might not happen in the near term because of the value of the office building that is already there. Right now if it is only RM-15 and you look and in the packet at the different models if our intention or our wish was to give an incentive to tear down the office building and put up a larger mixed use building then we should rezone it. But I think if we actually want to leave well enough alone don’t touch the zoning and we can make a motion pretty quickly and move on to the next item City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 37 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 especially given that it appears that inclusion of this parcel in the discussion to begin with was mistaken. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a different approach to it or a different point of view. Thinking about the projects that we have recently seen come before us for instance the Campus for Jewish Life which is just down the street and other projects that are in that proximity it is appropriate to have some sort of retail in that area that serves the adjacent neighbors, specifically this would be an ideal site for some sort of small supermarket to be there that people from the Campus for Jewish Life can walk down to, even some small shops for maybe even shoe repair and things like that. This would be an appropriate almost neighborhood serving retail site. I still see that the CS zone would be appropriate there. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Firstly I think that if the effect of Commissioner Burt’s suggestion would be such that it allowed the property owner to improve this property as needed to continue keeping it updated or whatever and making it a legal nonconforming use would allow such improvements I think that would be a good thing. I am questioning for Staff under the suggestion by Commissioner Burt whether that is in fact the case. Ms, Caporgno: No. I think Commissioner Burt is saying leave it the way it is because he doesn’t want it to change and he is saying that the office is totally ..... Commissioner Keller: I think he is suggesting not changing the zoning but making it a legal .... Commissioner Burt: IfI might clarify. I was not suggesting making it legal and I was suggesting also that the reason why we have these properties before us tonight is the Council had identified certain properties that they wanted to have addressed. This one not only doesn’t fit that mode it also was brought to them mistakenly and when you look at the impact of changing to CS it would potentially have a consequence that is different from what the Council was looking for and perhaps different from what the Commission would be looking for. Mr. Larkin: Just a real quick explanation because I think Arthur Keller’s question demonstrates something that we haven’t actually adequately addressed. When a zone is changed the uses that exist in that zone are not automatically made illegal. What they are made is legal nonconforming. You can’t expand or change those uses but as long as you keep the same use it is legal. That is what Commissioner Burt was recommending. The other option is you can make a zone change and require that the use be discontinued and you have an amortization period in order to allow the property owner to get fair benefit of the use. That is what has been done on the Fry’s site. On these sites they are currently now existing nonconforming. They are legal as long as the uses aren’t expanded or changed. That would continue if there was no change made to this. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 38 of 71 1 Mr. Williams: To clarify further, I don’t know if this is where you were going with your 2 question, but while you can’t expand or change them you can maintain them. If it is a matter of 3 where you are saying the word, I don’t think you said improvement but you said to keep it up or 4 something like that, so in terms of improving interiors as long as it is still an office use and just 5 maintenance things that keep it looking good those are allowed, that type of activity is allowed 6 on a nonconforming use but you can’t increase the square footage and you can’t change the use. 7 You couldn’t turn it into retail use. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: The second set of issues is that on our Attachment E there is a property here labeled CS in fact to the right of where it says in San Antonio Road. I believe that on one of those parcels there is a thing called the World Market, at least there was the last time I looked I am not sure if it is still there, and that is an example of a small grocery store that I think might serve the Campus for Jewish Life and presumably the residential that is nearby. I am just pointing that out. I think that when the Campus for Jewish Life is actually built I would suspect that there would be an increased need for such services. I do understand that as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process part of what we will be considering is the East Meadow Circle and San Antonio Road area. So I don’t know if at that time we would also consider this parcel or if we are dealing with this now but in some sense I do agree this parcel doesn’t necessarily fit the same criteria as the other parcels. In some sense some more comprehensive look needs to be made. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: Just to clarify. Had this mistake not been made would this parcel be before us? Ms. Caporgno: I don’t know if it would have because we would have put it on the list because it still meets the criteria of it is commercial property with a residential zoning district and land use designation. Now, they may have made the distinction, there was an office building they discussed possibly changing and then they decided not to because of its location. So just because it is an office doesn’t mean that they would have said we are not going to include it. So I don’t if they had known it was two separate parcels whether or not they would have included it or not. Mr. Williams: Again, going back to just listening to what they were talking about their focus all along seems to be retail, existing revenue generating uses and trying to protect those. So I am not sure, this doesn’t seem to us to be nearly the same level of priority as some of those other sites. I also mentioned and I think Commissioner Keller mentioned something about Comp Plan and that. If this site or the others are something where you feel there is not an imminent potential for change the Comp Plan is going to look at some of these issues over the next couple of years so it could be revisited through that process as well. Ms. Caporgno: We haven’t delineated the boundaries for East Meadow Circle and San Antonio area study and I don’t know if it will extend that far down. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 39 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Sandas: No. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Comments along Professor Keller’s lines. Just looking at the zoning map here there are a variety of things going on obviously on the southern boundary of San Antonio Road on the other side. It is primarily commercially zoned in a variety of ways. There are some PCs as well~ The northerly side of San Antonio has a PC for the Greenhouse and then you have some R-l, R-2, etc. So I have a hard time seeing this particular parcel as supporting the more commercially oriented zones that are bordering San Antonio directly. I find myself less convinced that it is a CS-like animal. One question that I think you have already answered and that is there is a study of I think it is the traffic that goes up San Antonio that has been done and recommendations relative to the street itself, is that right? The San Antonio corridor study or whatever that is called? Mr. Williams: There is not on San Antonio. There were numbers done for the 901 San Antonio project, Charleston-Arastradero Corridor had a study. The San Antonio Corridor there is an improvement project relative to replacing trees, the median .... Ms. CaporCno: Yes, it is not doing anything for any traffic. Commissioner Garber: Yes, but relative to taking a more comprehensive look to the area’s uses is yet to be done. Mr. Williams: Right. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: One thing that I also want to point out is that further north up Middlefield Road is the Charleston Center at the corner of Charleston and Middlefield with Piazza’s and other retail. So in terms of neighborhood serving retail there seems to be an adequate amount and that shopping center seems to be getting some new businesses and increased vitality. So I tend to agree with Commissioner Burt and also what Commissioner Garber just said that that is particular parcel doesn’t seem to need to fit into the CS at this point. I hadn’t thought of unintended consequences but boy you sure could put something pretty big as a mixed use site there where right now the impact on that piece of property is pretty limited. So if it ain’t broke let’s not do anything to try to fix it is my thought. Chair Holman: I have a couple of questions for Staff. One is this building was fairly recently built, when was it built do we know? Ms, Capor~no: No, I was told maybe ten years ago. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 40 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: So I guess my question is if it is zoned RM-15 how was it built ten years ago because I don’t think it is likely the zoning was changed? I don’t know if you are going to have an answer to that but it is a curiosity I had. Commissioner Keller: I believe that there was a commercial property there before and I believe it was remodeled. It was not? Mr. Williams: It was remodeled about ten years ago. Chair Holman: Remodeled and not rebuilt. Mr. Williams: So the size stayed. Chair Holman: So the size stayed the same too? Ms. Caporgno: Yes. Chair Holman: All right, okay, that helps with that. I guess none of these are easy. I am looking at this map and I am looking at the Summerwinds site not trying to get into any conflict issues but I am looking at the Summerwinds site at the same time as I am looking at the 4151 Middlefield. I am looking at how that would make such a more appropriate parcel because of access and availability for development. There are some uses that are allowed in CS that are not allowed in CN. So I guess will just throw it out there to see if there is any interest in consideration of CN for that parcel. Part of me says yes, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I can go that way too. Another part of me is like zone for what you want and look to the future what is really going to happen here and what is going to best. There was one other point about this, which escapes me at the moment. I saw Commissioner Keller’s hand go up. Oh, yes, I just remembered what it was which is CN, Staffhas put it out there as a possibility of something we could consider but how would CN not be spot zoning? Mr. Williams: Did you want to answer that? First of all it is applying a zone we already have. We were talking before about creating something that applies in one spot. We have a lot of places where an individual parcel is CN but it is next to other CS and it is not necessarily a string of CN parcels. I think you just need to find that there is some reason why in this particular location it is appropriate and it may be because there is residential on three sides of it that might be your reasoning. That it is not right at the corner of roadways. So I can see that there are reasons you could probably come up with to justify that distinction but you just have to make that distinction. And in doing the zoning you have to find that there is that kind of basis for it rather than the CS or some other zoning. Ms. Caporgno: Our recommendation of the CS was mainly because there were other CS zoned parcels along that area. The CN could be appropriate if it can serve that neighborhood. There is a neighborhood adjacent to it where these other properties, Mayflower Motel, Palo Alto Bowl didn’t appear to be that neighborhood serving oriented. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 41 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: I think I was next. Chair Holman: I’m sorry, Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I am having one problem and I am wondering if anybody else is having the same problem. In some sense what makes sense for this property depends on two things. First of all if it makes sense to turn this property into something else. Let me start again. So we are next going to consider I presume 725 San Antonio. Under the scenario that 725 San Antonio stays as RM-15 that might affect what we do to this parcel. On the other hand if 725 San Antonio is changed to some other zoning then that might have implications for this parcel. So in some sense we are looking at these parcels in the wrong order. So it seems to me that there are two alternatives. Do nothing to this parcel now and revisit it when we do the Comprehensive Plan Update and hopefully that will include this parcel when we look at it again. Or alternatively if we could look at the 725 San Antonio parcel first and table this until after the 725 parcel I think it could inform our considerations of this parcel. MOTION So I am going to make a motion to table this to reorder it to after the 725 San Antonio parcel. SECOND Commissioner Tuma: I would second that. Chair Holman: Does the City Attorney have something to say? Mr. Larkin: You can do that. Chair Holman: So we have a motion on the floor to table 4151 Middlefield Road until after consideration of 725 San Antonio. Motion made and seconded. Do you care to speak to your motion or do you think you already have? Commissioner Keller: I think I already have. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I have been sitting here and it goes to one of the earlier questions I had. I recognize that these are two parcels owned by two separate people. I also know that from time to time developers will buy portions of another parcel and do a lot line adjustment. I do think it bears some value in having the other discussion before we vote on this one just to see what else comes out, I think that there could be some possibilities about these parcels working together and also how they relate to each other is important to talk about first. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 42 of 71 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 Commissioner Burt: I am okay with the tabling of it. I would just like to add some additional 2 context. I think it was Commissioner Keller who alluded to the Comp Plan Update and for those 3 Commissioners and audience members who aren’t familiar with it we had initially as part of the 4 Zoning Ordinance Update intended to move from dealing with updating the zoning 5 classifications into then looking at where to redraw the zoning maps. We are not going to be 6 doing that immediately following it we are now going into the Comp Plan Update. I would 7 argue that there area lot of parcels throughout the city that would merit equal consideration for a 8 zoning change as this one would. It is only by a fluke reason that this is on the table tonight and 9 it is really not consistent with the reasons why the other three are here. The Council was concerned over preservation ofretaiMike uses and that is why we are even having this meeting. This one doesn’t belong and it is not necessarily more or less of a valid issue to look at the rezoning here. I just don’t think we ought to be spending our time tonight on it. We ought to focus the limited amount of time we have on the three that matter. Mr. Larkin: I just want to comment I don’t have my little chart here I wasn’t expecting procedural questions but I believe this is one of those motions with a very limited discussion and debate until after the question has been called. So it is one of those if you table it you table it, if you don’t you don’t. ¯MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) Chair Holman: Okay. All those in favor of tabling this property until after the discussion of 725 San Antonio Road say aye. (ayes) Opposed? So that passes unanimously. So we could do 725 now. So why don’t we undertake 725 San Antonio Road now. I have two cards from members of the public Elisa Noonan and Ellen Fletcher. You each will have five minutes. Ms. Elisa Noonan, Palo Alto: I wanted to give you these. My family owns 725 San Antonio Road. I had a written statement. I don’t know if this will make five minutes or not. I just wanted to say we met Chitra and Julie at the meeting and we appreciate all their hard work but we have a different perspective. We are really, really concerned. I think what I will do is just have copies, like I have done before and give you the rest of this. Right now under RM-15 we have an existing use that is legal, that is grandfathered in and we strongly disagree with changing the zone and land use from RM-15 multiple family to commercial. We stated the reasons for that in letters to you. Tonight I wanted to direct your attention to the current zone map. What we see here is a thoughtful plan, a plan that strengthens the quality of life for people who live in this community. The way the land use designation and zone districts are now setup form a bridge, a transition, a link, a seamless connection from single family to multiple family to commercial in an orderly way. If you look at the zone map as a grid Palo Alto has single family on the left, multiple family in the center, and commercial across a major thoroughfare on the right. 725 San Antonio is part of the multiple family center. We see that this is the vision the current Palo Alto plan has for this community and our family wants our City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 43 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 property, 725 San Antonio Road, to remain part of that vision, to remain part of that multiple family center. In the future, and this is long range because right now we have an existing use that is there for us, we see 725 San Antonio Road as an extension of the Greenhouse and of standalone multiple family residences. We see it as an elegant extension, a vibrant tree-lined space for people to reside, to live. We think Palo Alto spent many careful hours setting this current grid of zoning, if you will these current corridor strips, and we think that Palo Alto should maintain that vision. The single-family benefit from the multiple family next to it. The multiple family homes serve, as the regulations Palo Alto setup say, as a transition to the nonresidential uses across the thoroughfare. We wanted to give you this map because it is important to set this frame. We wanted the City Council Members to look at our property in the same way they looked at the AAA office, the same way they looked at the surgery center when they removed them from the rezoning list because of those sites’ relationship to residential. We wanted the City Council to apply the same criteria, the same rationale, and a similar standard. We think it is fair for a property to be treated in the same way. Before we get to the number 3,713 we need to talk about what happened at the August 7 meeting. The minutes of the Council Meeting are attached to tonight’s StaffReport but the minutes as written do not actually tell what happened at the August 7 meeting. There is a critical section, a section we believe is material to the substance and process of what is being recommended tonight. The videotape confirms that a key section of dialogue is missing from the minutes. We really think that this shows the intent of the Council to prohibit any kind of housing, standalone, mixed use, any kind of housing and we want RM-15 kind of development on our site in the future. Right now we have something that we like but later on when we think about ten, 15, 20 years down the road you have to be forward thinking. What do you want to see in that whole entire area? We see homes there. We see the commercial across the side of the street. We see us being in conjunction with the Greenhouse and that is what we see our property as. According to the minutes Mr. Klein made a motion to ask the Staff to initiate the rezoning process for the last four of the six properties in Attachment C. We really think that this motion really contradicts the multiple policies stated in Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan that promotes housing. This is what happened. Ms. Mossar stated to Mr. Klein that he made a motion to initiate the process to rezone the properties but that Mr. Klein did not specify to what. Mayor Kleinberg then asked Mr. Klein to specify using the City Attorney’s wording. Mr. Klein then moved for Staffto start the process to rezone four sites listed in Exhibit C to commercial, prohibiting or restricting the potential for residential use. This is the important part, he added this and I quote, "As outlined in Option A-l," meaning that it is a strict commercial use. The key words that are missing from the written record are, "as outlined in Option A-1 ." Mr. Baum wrote in his memorandum that Option A-1 is a blanket prohibition of residential uses. That night Mr. Emslie discussed the difference between A-2, the mixed use alternative prohibiting standalone housing and Option A-l, the exclusion of all types of housing whether mixed use or standalone. Mr. Emslie and Mr. Baum characterized Option A-1 ad draconian and drastic. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 44 of 71 1 We really think, Commissioner, we would really like you to look over the City Manager’s 2 Report written by Curtis Williams and the City Attorney’s Memorandum. Mr. Williams’ report 3 in our view intimated that Option A-1 had disadvantages. We would also like you to look over 4 the videotape because the transcript is really not accurate. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 We feel it is important to take time to review these in order to make a thoughtful recommendation. We really do want to keep the RM-15 zoning. We think it fits the whole neighborhood. We think that is something that the plan - there was a vision that Palo Alto had and that was the plan that existed and we think it is a good plan. We believe precluding housing doesn’t make sense. Vice-Chair Lippert: Time. Ms. Noonan: Can I just finish? This is really important. This is about the ABAG numbers. I would appreciate it. Chair Holman: If you just finish up you thought and then I think time has run out. Vice-Chair Lippert: You are a minute and a half over. Ms. Noonan: Is it okay? I would appreciate it. Chair Holman: If you would just finish the current thought and then there is a follow up question for you. Ms. Noonan: Okay. Well, 3,713 is the proposed number of housing units that the ABAG Committee listed on their November 17, 2000 calculation sheet. Palo Alto would need to meet that in the next seven and a half years to meet its fair share of the region housing needs in all income categories. We think it makes no sense to preclude, prevent, or prohibit housing. Chair Holman: Okay, I think there is a follow up question for you. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I understand that you based on the record of what you heard at the City Council Meeting on August 7 that you are quite concerned with the potential that might exist for preventing any housing on this site. That is my understanding from the letters you have written and such. What I am wondering is let us propose that removing housing from this site as a possibility was not entertained at any time. Let’s just consider the case of the CS zoning which allows for mixed use. I am wondering how you would consider assuming that housing was still an option under mixed use whether CS zoning and a mixed use property that would create transition to what I see as the CS zone which is the gas station on the corner and the gas station across the street, whether a mixed use development that included housing would be an appropriate transition. Ms. Noonan: I don’t see that. I see RM-15. When I look at that place and I have walked it. I look at the homes and I say if this weren’t here 15 years from now what would I want to see? Would I want to live here? I look at this and I say, no I really think this talks to the single-family City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 45 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 homes that are on this side. I look to the north and I see the Greenhouse and I say you know, something that is elegant that matches that that really talks to this place. That is what I see. I see preserving that especially with these ABAG numbers should be a priority for Palo Alto. Chair Holman: Okay. Thank you very much. Ms. Noonan: That is really what I feel. Chair Holman: Are there any other questions for Ms. Noonan? Okay, thank you very much. Ellen Fletcher. Ms. Ellen Fletcher, Palo Alto: I live at the Greenhouse, which of course you know is next to Summerwinds. We have 228 units combined in Greenhouse I and Greenhouse II. I am 100 percent against the CS zoning. I wouldn’t mind a little neighborhood commercial, neighborhood retail, like Midtown has but I don’t want any big shopping center like that. CS zoning from what I have read in the ordinance; which was in the materials, is for a citywide and regional service. That is what I am 100 percent opposed to. I am not sure we need Neighborhood Commercial either because I have walked through Charleston Center I think that CS zoning is the most inappropriate zoning for this site because even the Midtown doesn’t have CS zoning which is neighborhood commercial. So that is my opinion. Please don’t make it CS. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioners, questions? Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Is it all right to comment rather than question or do you want questions first? Chair Holman: We can combine them. Commissioner Burt: Okay. I am not so sure that CS is appropriate for this site. As far as the notion of walkable neighborhood serving retail as the last speaker just said the Charleston Center is just a short distance away, serving the CJL and even more housing units coming in on East Meadow Circle is an issue that needs to be addressed down near Charleston and San Antonio where it will be walking distance to those areas. We have had those discussions and I think Staff has indicated that they have a strong inclination to address those issues there. I think those are very important to do so. What I was thinking about here is what do we have at this site and why is this trying to be preserved? I don’t think it is just the retail revenue that is an incentive whether Council spoke about it or not. For me, there is something else that in an ideal world would be preserved and that is to have a nursery there. That is Palo Alto’s nursery. It is a valuable community asset. If there was some way to help preserve that I think in the long term that would be really valuable to do so. It is not within our options tonight to create those incentives but just as we have talked about incentives for auto dealerships where low intensity uses are trying to compete with higher land values and yet those uses are important to the community we may need to look at transfers of development rights. So that might be something that for preserving this sort of use as well as looking incentivizing auto dealerships that might be a direction that we need to go in the future. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 46 of 71 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 As far as tonight I haven’t yet heard from the other Commissioners and I may yet be swayed but 2 my inclination would be to not make a change to this site because I think once again we may 3 have an unintended consequence if we zone this CS we could very potentially accelerate the 4 process of losing our nursery. The development potential under CS is higher than under RM-15. 5 Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.6 7 8 Vice-Chair Lippert: I agree with most of what you have said. I see it similarly but from a 9 slightly different point of view. This is a very important intersection or juncture of San Antonio 10 Road and Middlefield Road, which is the exiting point of a lot of commuters coming through our 11 city. What I see are people coming from Los Altos, coming across Alma Expressway heading 12 toward Bayshore Freeway on their way home. A lot of people are going to be stopping, buy their 13 gas, there is a gas station on the corner, in fact there is a gas station on two corners, and at the 14 same time they might very well stop and pick up some groceries, pick up their dry cleaning, do a variety of things while they are on their way home. In addition to that I see it in proximity to the number of residential neighborhoods that also have needs. So I see it as having potential as being another walking shopping center within Palo Alto. Just because there is one market doesn’t say that you have to shop at that one market. Why not have some competition and have a couple of markets or a couple of dry cleaners or a couple of coffee shops? So it is the proximity of this to two major intersections and the proximity to a very dense housing that is coming along that says to me that this is prime for rezoning either as CS or possibly a neighborhood serving commercial zone. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I think that it is unfortunate that gas stations seem to take the prime real estate on a comer because the issue is that it makes a rather unsightly gateway into the neighborhood either on San Antonio Road or on Middlefield Road. I long for the day when there will be a lot more people who are charging their cars at home and occasionally filling them up at a service station so there will be a lot fewer service stations than there are now. I think that day will be long in coming alas. Nonetheless I do see that there is a notion of transition. I do think that the property owner has eloquently talked about the idea that we should have some transition as you move toward San Antonio Road. My interpretation of transition is somewhat different from the property owner’s notion of transition. I see the Greenhouse community as being a wonderful community of moderately high-density housing. I see single residential housing toward Sutherland Drive and Montrose. I see a property that have deferred that is an office building in between so this property does not abut any R-1 zoning. Across the street is R-2 and next to it is something that is zoned CS. So I think that considering this property under CS or CN zoning would under current regulations provide for a mixed use development. I would be opposed for this site having only retail and not having a mixed use. So I think that a mixed use would go fine here in terms of the notion of Middlefield and San Antonio Road and where it is located. I also think that at the time when we consider satisfying the ABAG numbers at the time that they are given to us as part of the Comprehensive Plan it might be possible at that time to in conjunction with discussions with the property owner consider placing this site as a mixed use site on the Housing Element which I understand would guarantee that the City could not take away the ability to put housing on here. So I think that that would be something that would City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 47 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 make sense to me. I would agree with the discussions of our former Vice-Mayor, Ellen Fletcher, that this parcel is suitable for CN. I would encourage CN at this location combined with some sort of mixed use. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I share Commissioner Keller’s recognition that the gas station is the conundrum here. If the gas station were not here I suspect the solutions would be more distinct and more clear. It is hard for me to reconcile that the parcel be only housing given that you have that CS use there. Just the same it also makes sense to recognize that the one side of San Antonio is predominantly housing. So this gas station becomes the key. It is also imaginable that an argument to create the parcel as CS or CN for that matter allows for the development of a more commercial-like corridor along a very busy street also potentially makes sense. I don’t think anybody would ever put housing on that corner in particular. It would not be a great spot for housing to occur. All that description is just to say that I am not seeing one way or the other speaking to me as being more important than the other. I can also mention frankly that this site also has like some of the properties we just saw on El Camino has two zones on it. The portion of the site that is adjacent to San Antonio has the CN but the portion that is adjacent goes straight back from Middlefield is in fact residential and sort of splits that - I am not sure it is making a difference but it is acknowledging those two different areas on either side of those two streets. So I find myself wondering if the issue of how the City is going to approach this area in a larger context in the general plan or as part of an area plan or an area study is something that essentially we would put some of these issue off, not take action now until that opportunity comes to rethink of this in light of the larger impact. Again, I am just making comments and observations. I haven’t made a decision one way or the other at the moment. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I used to live in this area. I used to drive by. this intersection all the time sometimes coming off 101, sometimes even to get gas. For different reasons I am in the same boat as Commissioner Garber. I am really believing just thinking about if I were still living there how would I want this and I am really conflicted. I think that there is something to be said for what Commissioner Lippert was saying but at the same time having lived in that area you go to Piazza’s, there is a Safeway just on the other side in Mountain View but that is where some people go to shop. There is a whole new section where R.E.I. and those places are there has been a lot of development there. There is Costco. So I am not sure be honest with you what the right solution is here. It may sense to take a little bit more time. It doesn’t seem like it is urgent so to me maybe making no decision and leaving it for discussion within the context of the Comp Plan makes more sense. I am concerned, as I alluded in the beginning, about the impact of the ABAG numbers. We don’t know what they are going to be yet andI think that is something that has to be taken into consideration and the time to do may very well be in the context of the Comp Plan. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 48 of 71 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Sandas: A couple of things. One is you mentioned the ABAG numbers and I suspect, unencumbered by any facts at my disposal at the moment, I suspect that we are doing fine with the ABAG numbers. I think that we will continue to do fine. You will tell us at some point. One of the things is I think that CN is actually a brilliant or very good compromise. The parcel at this point is zoned RM-15. The owners have a vision for housing and our community while we have evolved in a slightly different direction from when the RM-15 zoning was placed here we still value the housing, but we also value the mixed use and the neighborhood retail, the ability to walk to where you are going to go, to places that you need to go to. On this corridor here on San Antonio Road it is a very busy corridor yet with certain developments coming in like Campus for Jewish Life and other things and more housing I think we are creating the opportunity to slow that corridor down a little bit and make it more walkable and more pedestrian friendly. So if we all decide that we want to put this off and talk about it later I can handle that but I think that recommending Neighborhood Commercial is a wonderful compromise that we may end up doing anyway. Chair Holman: I want to jump in just for a minute before Commissioner Keller speaks again. Several points have been made, as Commissioner Burr knows, I have long spoken against incentivizing the removal or redevelopment of parcels that have something on them that is a community value. Commissioner Burt is also the only one that would remember this that when the industrial zones came to us previously that I wanted to remove housing as an allowed use along San Antonio and Charleston because I thought standalone housing was not the best use along those two corridors. I don’t see standalone housing on this site. The filling station is there. It is an allowed use. We can’t say it is always going to be there but we have so few filling stations in Palo Alto and environmentally unfriendly as it is we do use gasoline still. So we can’t predict but I don’t see it going away any time soon. That creates a conflict with standalone housing at that site. I mentioned earlier CN and I can see there being a mixed use with neighborhood serving uses here. There is a large adjacency to the Greenhouse that I can see opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle paths that would interact with that property. We will get back to the property next door and how we are going to deal with that one but I am going to go back to something I mentioned earlier which is I am sort of partial to the CN and I would really be interested in looking at a larger percentage of floor area for the neighborhood serving uses than what we have. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: It seems to me that the process of assigning rezoning parcels to housing has been a long process over many years, rezoning parcels to housing. The earlier parcels we talked about were maybe rezoned 30 years ago, the Mayfield one we were talking about earlier, talking about how long that parcel has been rezoned. It seems to me that in the past there was a trend to promote housing precisely because housing was non-economic. Therefore the City had to take specific measures to encourage housing because otherwise housing would not be created and there was a need for housing. I think that the economics of that has flipped and I don’t think the economics are going to flip back. Therefore in some sense there is what is called history sis effect, you chose something and then something changes but there is a delay in that process. In the past we were concerned about not having enough housing so we created incentives for that housing to happen. There is a delay in some process while that housing was being developed. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 49 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Now what we are saying is that housing is sort of mushrooming up around town, there are lots of parcels that were in the process of being converted to housing and the City Council said basically, whoa, we want to manage this transition to housing. Therefore there is a major trend towards limiting the amount, where housing goes, there is a major trend in the city I see to making the housing more as part of mixed use developments. I think that the fact that this is based on a Comp Plan that was essentially written ten years ago things have changed a lot in the intervening ten years. I suspect that a lot of the policies that were put together for the Comp Plan envisioned and had an EIR that envisioned 2,400 housing units and now we have already approved 2,400 housing units based on the Comp Plan. I expect that our mission of exactly how many housing units would be support and the impacts on the schools and the impacts on services and things like that I am sure we would or at least I hope we would have a look at those impacts when we look in the future and we will not summarily think about exactly the zoning matching because it was residential in the past. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: I would just like to point out to fellow Commissioners that even though I think CN zone is a good zone in many places the allowable floor area for residential in CN zone is the same as what it is in the RM-15. So by adopting CN we wouldn’t do anything to diminish any likelihood that this would get flipped toward housing. It would just be flipped toward mixed use with the same amount of housing plus the commercial. I don’t think that is what the Council had in mind when they sent these things over. I am very concerned whether it is CS or CN that changing this to either of those zones would make it more likely that we will in the near term see this flipped and have one of those two zones occur. To me, we don’t want to do something that is going to accelerate the loss of our nursery. I think we should take more time to look at how we can address this thoughtfully. I think if we go for either of those we are going to have unintended consequences at least what for many of us would be unintended consequences. Some may be intended consequences but it would be an incentive to accelerate that change. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: In going through this I feel very much the way you do in terms of the loss of the nursery. I think that is a crucial, defining feature of our community but our community is in transition. It is growing, we do have other needs, and I think looking at it in terms of being able to bring some commercial development is an appropriate location there? The nursery can find other sites within Palo Alto to exist. There are other sites. MOTION So my feeling about it is that, and with what I have heard from other Commissioners I am willing to entertain a motion that we recommend to Council the CN zone with the mixed use element. That is my motion. SECOND Commissioner Keller: Second. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 50 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Lippert: Included in that of course in the Negative Declaration and the Comp Plan Amendment. Chair Holman: Do you want to speak any more to your motion? Vice-Chair Lippert: I think Professor Lippert has given his lecture. Chair Holman: Dr. Keller. Commissioner Keller: Well, I think that this is a worthwhile site for a neighborhood serving commercial. I think it would provide an appropriate transition and buffer to the CS zone that it abuts. I think that the potential for this site as providing necessary housing on the Housing Inventory would at the time that the ABAG numbers are released and we evaluate that might provide the appropriate assurances to the property owner who is very interested in building housing here. I don’t know when the Summerwinds Nursery lease is up. I don’t know whether we can ask the property owner about it at this time but one of the issues here is that if the Summerwinds lease is up relatively soon and we do not take action on this site I would not be surprised if the property owner were to accelerate the process of building 100 percent housing on this site because that is what the property owner says that they want on this site. Chair Holman: Seeing no hands .... Commissioner Burt: I am interested in making a substitute motion. Chair Holman: IfI can say something first. These are all difficult and we are spending a lot of time on individual parcels but they are strategically located and difficult parcels to deal with. As I mentioned previously i am very sympathetic to the existing uses and not zoning them out. I spoke a lot about that during SOFA as well. A question for Staffthat might help inform your motion or maybe not, if this was a retail only, if we went with a retail only option so that if the Commission’s desire is not to have standalone housing here and we went with retail only what uses would that be? Or is that something Staff would have to come to us with? Mr. Williams: From what we have heard from the Attorney we would have to come back to you with some kind of a new zone or sub-zone or something like that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Commissioner Burt: My substitute motion would be to retain the existing zoning for the time being for the reasons that I previously stated. SECOND Commissioner Garber: I will second for discussion. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 51 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Okay, Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: The only thing I would add to my previous statements, I think I did the best job I could of arguing my reasoning, is that we talk about reducing length of car trips and car trips. Not having essential services in the community is an important concern and I am very skeptical that the nursery would be able to find affordable land in the city if they would try to relocate. By doing this we don’t guarantee that we are going to retain this long term it just I think gives us a little more breathing room look at what is the best solution without doing something that may be counterproductive if what we would like to do is try to look for or explore ways that we can retain this kind of use. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I am supporting the substitute motion for slightly different reasons. I don’t think we have the right criteria yet. I am not quite sure what those are but I think that there are many forces that are at play with what the use of this parcel can be. I am supporting the motion because it would give some time for the issue to be revisited by Staff with potentially some of the impacts of these decisions drawn out to understand them better. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: I also support the substitute motion for a couple of reasons. One is that I agree with Commissioner Garber that I don’t think we have enough information and we need some more criteria to judge this by effectively. The second reason is that I think we are trying to plow through pretty quickly to get to the end and personally I feel like I’m a little bit out of gas and I would like to think about this more with a fresh mind to be honest. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: Without the risk of repeating all the things that I have said before and what everybody else has said I would find myself supporting the substitute motion as well. I just think that this recommendation is better made in the context of more criteria. With this property and quite frankly with 4151 Middlefield I’m in the same place. Vice-Chair Lippert: I just have a procedural question. Does the substitute motion close the book on this property? Would it not be better to just continue this item for better information and clarity? Mr. Larkin: You can continue it but would require a separate motion or the substitute motion would close the book because it could conceivably go back to the original motion but I would expect that would be gone because of the action cited. The issue with continuing it and Curtis and Julie can fill in but we have a date to take this forward to Council and so continuing isn’t going to accomplish what you are looking for because I think you want to continue it for a longer term than we would be able to give you. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 52 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Capor~no: We haven’t identified a date however the Council had indicated that they wanted this to come back. The whole point of this process was to address these in the interim before the Comp Plan was completed. That is why they directed us to identify the sites and start this process. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: If memory serves; in reviewing the minutes from that meeting too it seemed like a fair degree of the urgency was also around the impending legislation, Prop 90. That time having passed that is something that gives me pause to think I am not so sure we have to rush to a decision here without getting inside the minds of Council that seemed to have played a significant role in the discussions. I remember actually watching some of that and then reading the minutes as well. Ms. Caporgno: They knew it wasn’t going to come back to them before Prop 90 was approved. It was the other portion, the ZOU portion that they were anxious to move forward with both items recognizing that they weren’t going to get this before Prop 90. Commissioner Tuma: But there was a discussion was there not about possibly doing this on an urgency ordinance? Mr. Larkin: There was some brief discussion but it was determined that this would not be able to be done prior to Prop 90. Mr. Williams: Nevertheless the Council was anxious to move forward on this. We don,t have a date. I think some of the questions that we have heard that sound like bigger picture questions are not going to be answered in a month or something like that if you continue it. So if that is what you are looking for those are probably Comp Plan questions and that is where it could get discussed more fully. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I am wondering I understand that a bunch of other parcels may come before us. Ms. Caporgno: There are four additional ones. Commissioner Keller: Okay. Ms. Caporgno: None of them are located in this area. Commissioner Keller: So one of the issues for me is I am sort of wondering if we do wait for the Comp Plan to be able to revisit this it is not entirely clear for me whether the Comp Plan is going to have an opportunity to visit this so I would like some clarity as to the scope of the Comp Plan whether it will include looking at parcels like this. City of Palo A#o December 6, 2006 Page 53 of 71 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 Ms. Caporgno: The direction we had for the work program for this approved by Council 2 indicated looking at the one area of West Bayshore, East Meadow Circle and San Antonio but as 3 I said before we don’t have the area delineated. I did envision that we probably would go that far 4 but that doesn’t mean we won’t but we weren’t going to be looking at individual sites throughout 5 the city and making a determination. There were only two areas where we were looking at for actual Comp Plan changes, land use designation changes, and rezonings if necessary. We were looking at the Fry’s area and East Meadow Circle-West Bayshore area. Commissioner Keller: So it seems to me that to the extent, yes? Mr. Williams: I was going to add that one of the other charges is to look at the policies of retaining retail versus housing services and all that. So I think the framework to look at individual parcels is going to be more in place then. Like Julie said, we are not going to go around and look at each parcel in the city. I suspect that there will be policies that will be developed. Ms. Caporgno: That is one of the real focuses of this at the beginning is kind of looking at policies and including more policies that would encourage the retention of retail or require retention of retail than what we have. Commissioner Keller: So what might make sense is it seems to me that we may not unless we take specific action otherwise wind up taking a visit at these particular sites as what I expect is the intent of Commissioner Burt’s motion. If we, as I understand Commissioner Burt’s motion, is basically leave this be until the Comp Plan and we may or may not look at it. So I would encourage Commissioner Burt to amend his motion. I will make a friendly amendment. My friendly amendment is that we specifically look at the rezoning of these sites at 725 San Antonio Road as well as 4151 Middlefield as we would be taking that up in probably the same manner and that these specifically be requested for us to visit as part of this housing-retail discussion with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Larkin: Ifl can make a friendly amendment to your friendly amendment rather than direct something in the Comprehensive Plan which isn’t on the agenda if you could just say bring it forward at a later date would be a better way to say that and it is not quite as specific. Vice-Chair Lippert: In here part of what our purview tonight is is to look at amending the Comp Plan so why can’t we mention that in there? Mr. Larkin: You could mention amending the Comp Plan as part of the larger Comp Plan Amendment that would be within the scope of what has been proposed. Commissioner Keller: So let me rephrase my friendly amendment. My friendly amendment is to commit this for reconsideration at such time as we do the Comprehensive Plan Update process. Commissioner Burt: That is acceptable to the maker. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 54 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: It is also acceptable to the seconder. Commissioner Tuma: Let me get a clarification here. The motion I believe only applies to one property. Are we now bringing in both in here? Commissioner Burt: No. Commissioner Tuma: I just wanted to be clear. Chair Holman: So a question for Staff is a timeline for such a consideration. When would that be? Ms. Capor~no: The question I have is are you making a recommendation that we go to Council and the recommendation is that the Comp Plan Work Program is amended to include this parcel when we evaluate the Comp Plan. So that is what we will be going forward to Council with is on this one site you recommending the change to CS and now the second site you are recommending we don’t do anything at this time and that we evaluate it in the Comp Plan. Commissioner Keller: The Mayflower Motel is changed to CS and my understanding of the motion now is that we are recommending no action be taken at this time but we are committing it to future consideration as far as Comp Plan revision process. Ms. Caporgno: That is your recommendation to Council? Commissioner Burt: Correct. Chair Holman: And my question is what would the timing of that be as part of the Comp Plan Update? Ms. Caporgno: It wouldn’t be completed until the Comp Plan was finalized which is probably going to be at the end of 2009. So during that period of time we are anticipating getting underway with the Comp Plan review in probably the next three or four months. Hopefully, the area studies would be contemplated to be one of the earlier portions at initially and probably would be completed in about a year. Everything will be adopted at the same time so there will be a three-year window or so in which this parcel will remain in the same zoning and land use designation and may remain that way indefinitely if there is no other recommendation. Chair Holman: So let me ask another question, which is something that we haven’t talked about before. I see this parcel as one that there is a lot of housing around here. There is also a variety of commercial around it. Would there be any reasons, for purposes of discussion, that we couldn’t say that we recommend CN with a ground floor retail overlay? Mr. Williams: CN already requires ground floor retail. Chair Holman: Okay. All right. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 55 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: So I guess the question is are we comfortable with the timeline of waiting three years? Is there another alternative on how we might revisit this? Mr. Williams: I think if there are changed circumstances or some reason that you find, when that comes to light then we can come back to you but if there isn’t and it is just in a holding pattern and we will wait for the Comp Plan. Commissioner Burt: So we are not bound and it will be no later than three years. Ms. Caporgno: Now that doesn’t mean that the Council may decide that they want to do something else. Commissioner Garber: You mean they may not take our recommendation. Chair Holman: I guess I am going to argue it. As Commissioner Burt said earlier, going back to the purpose of us looking at these parcel is to preclude the opportunity or viability if you will to flip revenue generating properties to housing, standalone housing specifically. I guess I am back to with the clarification that CN is all ground floor retail, which I had forgotten. I am back to supporting CN especially since we are three years out at a minimum. That is three years optimally. We know how these things run. So practically speaking it could be easily four years or more. So I am back to CN. I was just about convinced too but now the timeline. Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: I concur. When I heard the three-year timeline a lot can happen in three years. The unintended consequence of our delaying the decision for three maybe four years could be that that parcel gets redeveloped RM-15 because that is what the zoning is and we don’t accomplish our vision in Palo Alto of mixed use and neighborhood commercial and so forth. Mr. Larkin: I want to remind the Commission that there is a substitute motion and it is getting a little confusing as to which one we are talking about. Commissioner Burt: We still have a substitute motion. Chair Holman: Okay. The substitute motion is to do nothing and identify this parcel as one to be considered as part of the Comp Plan Update. So voting on that motion all those in favor. (ayes) Opposed? (nays) That motion passed on a four to three vote. Chair Holman: Am I allowed to ask for a reconsideration? Chair Holman: No. Commissioner Keller: Since I voted in favor, I can ask for a revote. I got confused. Chair Holman: Okay. So calling the question again. All those in favor of doing nothing and considering this parcel as part of the Comp Plan Update, all those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nay) So we have the second and prevailing vote is the motion fails on a three to City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 56 of 71 1 four vote with Commissioners Tuma, Garber, Burr voting aye and Commissioners Keller, 2 Sandas, Lippert and Holman voting no. 3 4 So we are back to the original motion. 5 6 Mr. Larkin: I just want to remind the Commission that your rules do say that you should make 7 every effort to end the meeting by eleven o’clock and there are a number of people waiting to 8 discuss presumably the final matter on the agenda. 9 10 Chair Holman: We are going to take a vote on this. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Larkin: A decision needs to be made though as to whether or not you are going to complete that fourth item or whether you are going to take public testimony and continue it. Commissioner Tuma: Also we still have to go back to the second item. Mr. Williams: Right. Vice-Chair Lippert: But that is last. Chair Holman: No it is not actually. Why don’t we vote on this motion and finish this. This is the CN motion so please restate your motion. Commissioner Keller: Okay, my motion is to rezone 725 San Antonio Road to CN~ to make the Comprehensive Plan Amendment accordingly, and to accept the Negative Declaration for this change. Mr. Larkin: It is the recommended option. Commissioner Keller: It is the recommended option. Vice-Chair Lippert: I don’t want to be a nitpicker but it was my motion and Commissioner Keller seconded it. MOTION PASSED (4-3-0-0, Commissioners Burt, Garber and Tuma voted no). Chair Holman: My apologies. Okay, so the motion as made by Commissioner Lippert and restated by Commissioner Keller. All those in favor of the motion? (ayes) Opposed? (nay) That motion passes on a four to three vote with Commissioners Keller, Sandas, Lippert and Holman voting aye and Commissioners Tuma, Garber and Burt voting no. Okay I have three cards from people who are here to speak to 4329 El Camino. Commissioner Keller: My suggestion is to do 4329 El Camino now and then come back to 4151 Middlefield later. I would rather not have to keep members of the public here to participate. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 57 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: There are two questions, one is would we like the members to go ahead and speak to 4329 El Camino and then Commission decided earlier we thought we could make it through them faster and as we get into them they haven’t gone that quickly. So do we want to take public comment on that item tonight since do have members of the public who are here and then maybe consider even continuing this one. We need to go back to 4151 Middlefield Road and try to finish that one up if we can finish that one quickly. Would that be agreeable? Mr. Larkin: I think we can continue it since we don’t actually have a Council date. Chair Holman: So would Staff be agreeable with that? Mr. Williams: That’s fine. I think we have room on January 10 on your agenda. Also, I think we would like to have you take action on the Middlefield one since it is tied to closely to 725 San Antonio. Chair Holman: Yes. So what we will do now is take public comment from anyone who is here to speak to 4329 E1 Camino Real. What we will do if Commission is agreeable to this is we will take comment from the three people who have turned in cards for this but we will not close the public comment so when we take this up again people can speak who have not already spoken. Commissioner Garber: I will excuse myself. Chair Holman: We have three speakers. You will each have five minutes. The first speaker is Donna Simonides. Mr. Donna Simonides, Palo Alto: Thank you. I am a neighbor across from the Motel 6. In looking at the information that was presented my primary interest in this is I don’t know where but this particular neighborhood that does adjoin the property go to Los Altos schools. A lot of those children do walk to school and they walk past the property that is under consideration. For us to get to school in the morning we make a left turn onto El Camino and then take a right turn on Los Altos Avenue. Given the way that the lights have changed over the past couple of years, there is a light at Los Altos Avenue and there is a light coming out of the Cabana. Traffic in the morning can sometimes, if there happens to be someone coming out of the bowling alley which I think these numbers might be calculated rather than actual numbers in Attachment H because there usually aren’t and I think the number quoted here is 95 AM peak hour trips. There are very few people coming out of the bowling alley in the morning during rush hour. But if there is someone they tend to come into the left lane to make a left turn. Sometimes it can take us two or three times at the light in order to turn left onto E1 Camino to take our kids to school that is for the ones that drive to school. There are also who walk and bike. So I know that the assessment in the committee report is that there would be no traffic impact during peak hours. I am actually a little curious about where those numbers come from because it is my understanding that we do have some traffic impact now but not a lot. With the kinds of commercial uses you have shown in here I can imagine any one of those businesses being content with the traffic pattern that is currently there. So I am a little curious about the number that are in Attachment H in terms of traffic impact because that is a big issue for those of us that live in this neighborhood. I personally pick up and drop offmy kids, I have two school age children, make that trip back and City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 58 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 forth eight time, enter and exit, eight times during the day. So you are asking an awful lot of folks that if you have seen the letter in your packet already feel a little disenfranchised being on the southern edge across from Los Altos and right next to Mountain View. That is my comment. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Maria Franke. Ms. Ms. Maria Franke, Palo Alto: I live on Monroe and we are directly behind the bowling alley so we stand to suffer the various impacts of any change. To answer your question as to whether you can mix residential with the bowling alley some 20 years of sleep deprivation and auditory abuse it is not working. Unless they lose their liquor license it is absolute mayhem most nights. I wonder if the Staff answers the question about the traffic study and how it was done because it seems impossible to be accurate. My letter is in here and I asked for a response from Staff and got none. We do go to Los Altos schools and have to make a left onto El Camino. Any residential development that is on that property I would assume will go to Los Altos schools and will have to exit and make an immediate U-turn. I have no vision of how that works. So there are a lot of questions. I think this property needs a lot of consideration. I think all the properties all the people seem to be begging for CN but with the idea that that has an emphasis on neighborhood and minimal density residential. We have had several people hit from our neighborhood crossing the street there. I believe we have had Donna Simonides and several other neighbors asking for a light on our street. The traffic impact for residential and commercial coming out of this property turning right onto E1 Camino people find it super convenient to come through our neighborhood to get to California Avenue to then go to San Antonio. So we are already impacted a lot by traffic that does that anyway and you are adding a huge amount. I don’t know how you will limit use of our private neighborhood as a thoroughfare. I am interested as to whether there is any impact study done on the Los Altos schools. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Mr. Williams: Since this is coming back to we will bring responses as well. Chair Holman: Excellent. Linnea Wickstrom. Ms. Linnea Wickstrom, Palo Alto: I too live in the Monroe Drive neighborhood as you might have guessed on the outskirts of Palo Alto as Staff described it. That is how we are constantly described and mis-located and that is a little bit concerning. Staff doesn’t apparently even know where we are in relation to other communities. I regard that the Commission’s recommendation for rezoning is probably inevitable and equally inevitable will be a redevelopment or a flip othat may actually clean up some of the problems that we experience between the bowling alley and the Motel 6. The place is a mess, the Palo Alto police don’t patrol, etc. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 59 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 My major concern too is traffic. The proposal states that any rezoning will not impact traffic and includes an estimate of 80 trips a day. There is another thing in Attachment H that ify0u live in the neighborhood can’t be true. The estimate that adding 55 to 65 residential units plus residential or putting in big retail there will actually reduce traffic as is posited in Attachment H I urge you to go back and reexamine. Monroe Drive as Maria was saying is already a cut-through for traffic going from El Camino to San Antonio to get to the freeway. We have repeatedly been denied any consideration of traffic calming within the neighborhood even though we have no sidewalks, we have kids trying to get to schools. We have been denied any traffic signal although the hotels get one, etc., etc. So I request that you either leave 4329 as it is, or if it is rezoned I would request the minimum possible density, and I don’t know how much impact you have or authority you have on traffic but if it is rezoned I would request that you as the Commission or the Council recommend or instruct Transportation or traffic to institute traffic calming in the neighborhood within Monroe Drive itself and to install a traffic signal on E1 Camino for safety of the residents. Thank you. Chair Holman: I think there is a question for you, ma’am. Commissioner Keller: I want to ask you because I didn’t want to ask the same question over and over again of each person and you seem to be representative of the group of three speakers, because you got to go last I am going to ask you whether you would prefer the current zoning which is residential only, 100 percent residential, whether you would prefer a mixed use development of CN or CS or what? One of the things I am having trouble figuring out is what is it that you want us to do other than traffic calming and putting in a traffic light? Ms. Wickstrom: We have not caucused. My personal preference would be the lowest density possible which is keeping the zoning as is. Commissioner Keller: Okay. Can I ask that of the other speakers?. Chair Holman: I think this is going to come back to us. Ms. Franke: I don’t have a clear understand of any of these proposals because I don’t think that the assessments were accurate. I don’t know what we are looking at with these proposals. So I think it is too soon to say exactly what we want. I don’t know how big a commercial thing you are talking about or if that includes a two-story parking lot right behind my bedroom. There is not a property owner present who I think you quoted was happy with the proposals. I think the property owner is selling because he is not happy with the rezoning. So there was not one present at the October Ventura meeting to answer another question. So I don’t know what we want here. Commissioner Keller: May I ask her the question? Chair Holman: Yes. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 60 of 71 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 Ms. Simonides: I actually do think the lowest possible density partly because of traffic. If there 2 were a way to mitigate traffic it would be less of an issue. I personally don’t have a problem 3 with there being some commercial in there but to increase the amount of traffic given the timing 4 between the lights and the fact that you have school age kids going to school I do encourage you, you mentioned site visits, I do encourage you to come while children are trying to go to school so you see what it is like for those kids to try and get across the intersection. There is a crossing guard but you still have a tremendous amount of traffic going across that. Commissioner Keller: So what would you prefer being there if you had your druthers? Ms. Simonides: Well, personally I am a little concerned because I heard rumors that the adjacent property is up for sale. What I can tell you I don’t want to see there is a very large complex because I think that will increase the amount of traffic again with some of the issues that we are having. You guys haven’t Spoken of that but it makes me nervous when you make comments about adjacent properties coming up and you are looking for a site for Fry’s, you are looking for incentives for auto dealerships, wouldn’t it be nice to have a large hotel, all of those things would be attractive in a property that encompassed both of those spaces. If it does it is right across the street from my house. I don’t know whether there is any egress being talked about if those properties come together, any egress onto Monroe Drive that is a big impact. So that it is a challenge to try and make an absolute determination because I do feel like honestly there is another shoe to drop in this. Maybe I am just mistaken in some of the comments, this is the first Planning Commission meeting I’ve gone to but I do have this underlying feeling that there is another shoe in this. I don’t know I could be wrong. Chair Holman: Were you able to come to the meeting that Staffhad? Ms. Simonides: I didn’t even know about it to be honest. So maybe there was a flyer in the mail, I don’t know, I wasn’t able to come. I wasn’t aware of it. Ms. Wickstrom: Do I have another 30 seconds on my five minutes? Chair Holman: If you want to respond to the question? Ms. Wickstrom: I would just like to add that although we are talking about the traffic from our point of view I would urge you again to go visit the site at all times of day and look at the impacts. It is not just the impact on our neighborhood it is going to be the impact on that entire stretch of E1 Camino and all the businesses in there including the people that might come into a residential mixed use or retail space at this particular property Palo Alto Bowl is on. They are selling. So look at the impact not just on our neighborhood but on that whole stretch of El Camino and how compressed that particular stretch is and see what traffic is really going to be like for everybody going along that road and whether it is indeed practical to put a very large residential, retail, or big box retailer in that spot.. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 61 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Caporgno: I just want to clarify one thing. There was a member of the family that owns the property at the community meeting and the person did speak to me afterwards. I don’t think I said they were happy with the proposal I think they had talked to us and seemed to be receptive to the concept of CN and they were opposed to the retail only with respect to that. We haven’t spoken to them since that time. Chair Holman: Okay. That is good information. One final speaker, Doug Franke. Mr. Doug Franke, Palo Alto: The question you brought up about what do we want, I say we want retail because CS seemed to be mixed residential, CN is mixed, is that right? You could put houses or more neighborhood oriented. This is our backyard right here. So whatever gets put right here is going to look right into our backyard. So I think we want retail so there is a parking lot at least which hopefully will close at five or six o’clock. Commissioner Keller: So you prefer 100 percent retail for that site? Mr, Franke: Yes. Commissioner Keller: I believe that your parcel also has another weird thing about it. Mr. Franke: That’s the easement. This is a commercial parking lot for the bowling alley right now but it is zoned R-1. We own that in our deed but the person who owns all this has the easement or usage rights and pays the property tax on that. It is a very weird deal. We don’t know what he is going to do with it. If it gets blocked off there is no access to it whatsoever. So that is a whole other issue. Like I said the bowling alley has been nothing but a nightmare for the 20 years we have been there, nothing but drunks and donuts and people cussing and people living in vans back there. So we would like to get rid of that. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. So we are going to continue this address 4329 El Camino. We are going to continue this to a date certain of January 10, 2007. We will leave the public comment open and take that up at that time. Commissioner Keller: I would wonder if there is a mechanism without too much trouble for having some sort of discussion with this particular property and the property owners and the residents. Mr. Williams: We will do that. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Mr. Williams: We will talk to the folks here tonight and setup something. Commissioner Keller: Great. Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 62 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Tuma: Ms. Caporgno: Chair Holman: Garber back? Did I understand that the adjoining property is also for sale? They own the same two properties. So we will go back to 4151 Middlefield Road and can we get Commissioner Commissioner Burt: Can I get clarification on Commissioner Tuma’s question? Chair Holman: Hang on for just a second. If members of the public are going to leave maybe we can give you a minute to leave, if you are going to stay then that’s fine but there is the microphone problem of picking up all the chatter. Commissioner Burt: I just want to make sure I understood the answer to Commissioner Tuma’s question. The same property owner owns the adjacent property. Ms. Caporgno: They own the Motel 6 as well. Commissioner Burt: Ms. Caporgno: No. Commissioner Burt: But that is not part of the proposal here. Thank you. Chair Holman: Now we can get Commissioner Garber. Okay we are back to 4151 Middlefield Road. We had some discussion about this previously do we have more discussion or do we have a motion? Questions or comments then? Commissioner Sandas: Just refresh my memory for a moment. Weren’t we talking about that was the one that it ain’t broke so don’t fix it. Chair Holman: I think that is a comment that Commissioner Burt made. Commissioner Sandas: I think he said don’t do anything with it and I concurred. But we must have had more discussion. Vice-Chair Lippert: In the interest of moving this along here I move that we continue this also to January 10, 2007. Commissioner Keller: I don’t second that. Chair Holman: There is no second that I am seeing. Commissioner Keller: I want to make a different motion. Chair Holman: So motion dies for lack of a second. Commissioner Keller. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 63 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36, 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 MOTION Commissioner Keller: I move that this property be rezoned to CN with the corresponding Comprehensive Plan Amendments and the recommendation of adoption of a Negative Declaration. SECOND Vice-Chair Lippert: I will second that. Chair Holman: Do you need to speak to your motion? Commissioner Keller: No. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I would like to speak to it and I would just ask for an amendment to that which is that it include mixed use commercial. Commissioner Keller: I am not sure I understand that. Sorry, so the other part of it is that I am not recommending adopting retail only. Vice-Chair Lippert: Great, thank you. Commissioner Keller: That was implied by my motion but we can add it. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you, I accept that. Chair Holman: I am confused by the motion because CN is not retail only so I am confused. Mr. Williams: He is just clarifying that ..... Commissioner Keller: I am just clarifying that we not - one of the questions was whether it should be retail only and the answer is we are not adopting the retail only prescription for this property. Chair Holman: Because it is CN that is being recommended. Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Do we know the FAR of the current office on there? I would be uncomfortable making that recommendation without having an understanding of the likely impact on the ground. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: And assuming there is no retail space attributed to that. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 64 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: Well, and also the likelihood that we are creating a circumstance where we are incentivizing demolition and a change to that mixed use. I would want to be conscious of what would be the likely outcome of the action. Commissioner Garber: Meaning that if there is FAR they could use you are incentivizing it to be taken down for retail or mixed use. Commissioner Burt: Right. Maybe that is what we want but I just kind of feel uncomfortable making a recommendation in the absence of having some sense of the likely outcome. We are not going to guarantee outcomes but it is certainly a consideration. Commissioner Garber: IfI may? Chair Holman: Yes, Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Assuming that the Commission has an opinion which is that the adjoining property is CN that suggests that what should be happening is that regardless of the impact on what the existing facility is that what we should be doing there is making that corner all have that same zoning. The only alternative in my mind to that is that you keep at RM-15 because then one thought would be that you are mitigating the R-1 that is on one side of that property and the CS that is on the other. That would be the only other alternative I would see to this. Commissioner Burt: Might I just respond? Chair Holman: Sure. Commissioner Burt: The other consideration is simply that if we don’t take action now it would be unlikely that there would be a change to what is constructed on this property prior to looking at this area as part of an area plan under the Comp Plan Update and we would look comprehensively at what we want to do. If we take no action then my sense is we will simply leave things as they are until we get to look and have thorough discussion and exploration of what should go in this area. Commissioner Garber: Not to argue against my previous vote but I guess the question I would have for Staff is the area study will occur within that three year period regardless, is that correct? Ms. Caporgno: Yes. Commissioner Garber: So that what actions we take today may be in fact revisited regardless if we take action or not within that three-year time. Ms. Caporgno: That is correct. Then also the other thing is it hasn’t been determined what that area would encompass. So it may not, at this point, it may not actually encompass that site. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 65 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: It may not extend that far? Ms. Caporgno: Yes. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma, do you have comments? SUBSTITUTE MOTION Commissioner Tuma: Yes. I understand what Commissioner Garber is saying but I think this property is different than the previous one in that it doesn’t seem likely that something would happen in the intervening period of time. They have just done a remodel relatively recently, it just sold, so I think in all likelihood the status quo would be maintained. For similar reasons they don’t plan anything, so it may make sense to look at this in the context of the Comp Plan. So I would make a recommendation that we not take action tonight but that it is specifically brought up in the Comp Plan review. Chair Holman: Is that a substitute motion? Commissioner Tuma: That is a substitute motion. SECOND Commissioner Burt: I will second that. Ms. Caporgno: We did find the square footage. The square footage of the office building is 24,000 square feet. Commissioner Keller: And 40,000 could be allowed at an FAR of one-to-one and currently what would be allowed is 16,900 residential floor area. So what would happen is if this site were converted it would have a reduction of the commercial from 24,000 office to 16,000 retail and you would have 24,000 of housing which is the amount of housing you could have if the building were torn down under its current zoning I believe. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: So am I hearing that the existing building would not conform underneath CS zone? Chair Holman: CN zone. Mr. Williams: Yes, it wouldn’t conform in a number of ways if it were going to be built new. A legal nonconforming use could remain but it is well above the allowable floor area ratio. CN is much more restrictive on office, actually both CN and CS have square foot limitations and then a use permit is required for office. Then both would have ground floor retail requirements so it would not accommodate office currently. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 66 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: So my interpretation of hearing the existing FAR is that on the one hand there is not much danger that if we zone it CN we would have an impact and if we do nothing we won’t have an impact. It is just not going to matter. It is not going to change. Commissioner Garber: It is not going to changer, therefore, let’s take action on the substitute motion and then get back to the main motion and see if by some other means another substitute motion comes. Commissioner Burt: May I ask what you have in mind so if we don’t table it what are thinking? Chair Holman: Wait, just for clarity you are saying to table it, do nothing. Commissioner Burt: I want to hear what Dan has in mind. Commissioner Garber: I am not sure it would have any support by any of the members of the Commission however, I don’t like to handicap properties for what will and will not be built because you are zoning a property and although I do recognize that one has to be pragmatic about preexisting uses. Given the previous action of the Commission which is to put CN on the other property which then means as a zone we have two parcels of commercial use that are then along San Antonio Road and on Middlefield on that corner that that supports an infringement of a commercial/mixed use/residential, etc. that is occurring on that corridor. What I would see looking down Middlefield is to get back to residential use as quickly as possible. So I would say given that it is not going to fit, what is there now doesn’t fit within any of that stuff is to leave it RM-15 so that if it is ever torn down it either return backs. Chair Holman: That is the substitute motion. Commissioner Garber: I thought the substitute motion was to not take any action. Chair Holman: That is essentially what you are saying. Commissioner Burt: That is the outcome of no action because it is RM-15. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: This is the way I see it. I see that if the adjacent property that we have recommended be rezoned as CN it is in fact redeveloped. That probably would wind up being the trigger for the redevelopment of this site. As long as nothing goes on, as long as that nursery remains, as long as it remains in use the way it is currently I don’t think anything is going to happen on the site that we are looking at right now. So I agree, I don’t think it makes much of a difference whether we take action or not at this point. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 67 of 71 1 Commissioner Keller: I think that in some sense we can speculate what goes on in a particular 2 property. However, my sense is that the purpose of what we are doing in zoning is not only what 3 will happen in the next three years but in some sense we are not likely to revisit this for awhile 4 because we have just rezoned one property we are not going to come back revisit the other 5 property when we do the Comprehensive Plan Update. So the issue is what we expect to happen 6 for this property for the foreseeable future. I think that is the way we should consider it. The 7 foreseeable future is I don’t know if this will be revisited in five years, ten years, 20 years but 8 zoning is zoning and if you allow zoning to be a certain zoning then things will happen in 9 conformance with that zoning sometime in the future when you least expect it. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 So I would like to expand on what Commissioner Lippert said because I would anticipate that there is a potential that it is not merely the triggering of the redevelopment of the 725 San Antonio parcel that triggers the redevelopment of this parcel but that perhaps the two parcels might be developed in tandem, and that a much better development might occur by doing these two parcels in tandem as a combined parcel. If they have different zoning that is going to make it much more difficult. So by rezoning this property CN it does not change an ability for the existing use to continue but what it does do is it basically encourages the redevelopment of the two parcels as a single development which I think would actually improve the nature of the development that would occur there if the property owners were to get together and allow that; So I think that in many ways it is the division of parcels into small ones that causes more problems and aggregation will actually provide for better design and better integration. So my suggestion is to rezone it to CN precisely in order to allow a combined development to happen at some time potentially in the future. Chair Holman: This property jt~st sold we were told, do you know when? Ms. Moitra: Within the last two years. Chair Holman: Okay and the building was redone how recently? Ms. Moitra: This past August/September. " Chair Holman: August/September of this year? Okay. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: So forgive me. Chair Holman: I think we might be arguing the same arguments over again too. Commissioner Garber: I have something new. Given that logic one would then think the property that is adjoining it if it were to become CN then that would make a greater opportunity. But I think because you are creating more and more adjacent parcels that have the same zone, right? Commissioner Keller: No, because those are zoned R-1 and it is very unlikely that R-I zoning would be aggregate into any larger thing. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 68 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: Your argument is that because there is a commercial use there now it should be? Commissioner Keller: My argument is that there is not now a standalone policy for development, that the aggregation of two parcels would be better than two individual developments for site and design reasons, and that zoning them in the same manner would facilitate such a change. Chair Holman: Okay. Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Butt: Given that we accepted that, with the exception of Commissioner Lippert, that it is somewhat of a near term moot point because I don’t think anybody is going to tear this thing down in the near term but if we want to have a discussion on what we want, what we would like to see, and vote on that I want to go back to both the stated and unstated objectives. One was the Council was interested in preserving retail that doesn’t apply here. The second that behind that discussion at the Council was also not only retaining retail but concern about what has recently been an acceleration in housing construction perhaps even beyond what was in our Comp Plan and wanting to get that dialed in with the expectations. So near term not wanting to do things to accelerate the housing. Then the final consideration is the long-term housing situation. We got a copy of this draft and it is only a draft of the next ABAG requirements, You see Palo Alto has got a big jump in their mandate and it goes back to our job of housing imbalance. One of the things we haven’t talked about tonight is that aside from what is going to happen in housing the balance of this decade and whether we have gotten too much acceleration perhaps in the housing construction, long term when we put in the mixed use we don’t help correct our jobs/housing imbalance we continue it. Chair Holman: In the mixed use? Commissioner Burt: Versus the RM-15. When we just put in housing then we reduce the jobs/housing imbalance. When you put in housing and jobs you keep it out of whack and we haven’t been talking about that. Chair Holman: Oh, right. Commissioner Burt: And long term we are still going to need to look at trying to address the housing shortage to the extent that the community can accommodate enough services and to the extent that we add new jobs we have exacerbated the problem even though there are some admirable things about mixed use that help in community design. I want to make sure that we are thinking about that aspect as well because we just keep compounding the problem. So that is why even though I like mixed use in appropriate places, this is not necessarily a bad place, but I lean toward Commissioner Garber’s recommendation to keep it RM-15 because maybe that is the right long term use. Chair Holman: So we have a substitute motion on the floor to do nothing and to leave this parcel... City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 69 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: I would like to characterize it slightly differently. Rather than to do nothing it is to reaffirm the RM-15. Chair Holman: Retain the existing zoning. I am going back and forth. I think ultimately this should be CN over the whole site. I think it makes a better workable site but I think in the short term, short term being five years, that we can leave it zoned RM-15 for later consideration, hopefully it is three years but worst case it would be four years and no worse than five years. Commissioner Keller: What I am wondering is when we are discussing the adjacent parcel we talked about recommitting that to consideration with the Comp Plan revision process. I am wondering whether or not that is part of the motion or not because as Chair Holman suggested we should revisit this at some time in the future. As I understand this we are not proposing to revisit it at any time at all. Vice-Chair Lippert: Ask for a friendly amendment. Commissioner Keller: Okay. I propose a friendly amendment in which we consider this property and its proper zoning as part of the Comp Plan Update process. Commissioner Tuma: Before I answer I have a question. Is there anything that prevents us from doing that at a later date? Mr. Williams: No. Commissioner Tuma: Okay. I wouldn’t be amenable to doing that. MOTION PASSED (6-1-0-0, Commissioner Keller voted no) Chair Holman: Okay. I will call the question on the substitute motion. All those in favor of the substitute motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay) That motion passes on a six to one vote with Commissioner Keller voting nay. Okay, we have no Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chair Holman: We have no Reports From Officials. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS/COMMITTEES. COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS. Chair Holman: Commission representation at Council is Commissioner Lippert in December. Commissioner Keller: I believe I volunteered for January. City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 70 of 71 1 Chair Holman: So we have December, January, and February all covered. Our next meeting is 2 December 13, next Wednesday where we will meet at seven o’clock. 3 4 NEXT MEETING: Meeting of December 13, 2006. 5 6 Chair Holman: Meeting adjourned. 7 8 ADJOURNED: 11:45 PM 9 City of Palo Alto December 6, 2006 Page 71 of 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26: ROLL CALL: 7:00 PM Wednesday, January 10, 2007 Regular Meeting at 7:00 PM Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Paio Alto, California 94301 Commissioners: Karen Holman - Chair Lee L Lippert- V-Chair Patrick Burt Paula Sandas Arthur Keller Staff." Curtis Williams, Assistant Director ffle lissa Tro__n_q~u_yt_,___D__ep_u__t)!__ _C__~_A__t_t.o. rney ..--~" Deleted: Melissa Tronquet, Deputy Cio’ ] Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transp. Official [ Art .... Amy French, Current Planning Manager Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist Daniel Garber-conflicted with Item 2 Dennis Struecker, Consultant Samir Tuma Lorraine Weiss, Consultant Steve Emslie, Planning Director Zariah Betten, Exee. Secretary ¯ ............................................................................................................................................ i Deleted: . . . AGENDIZED ITEMS: 1. 1072 Tanland Avenue 2.___4329 E1 Camino Real (Palo Alto Bowl) 3. Zoning Ordinance Update: Ordinance Amending Section 18.10.070(a) to prohibit Second Dwelling Units (and any Airspace Rights Thereto) under Different Ownership from the Initial Dwelling Unit in the R-2 and RMD Districts. 4. 4233, 4225 Middlefield Road and 710 San Antonio Avenue 5. 526 Lowell Avenue APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Regular Meeting of November 29, Special Meeting of December 6 and Regular Meeting of December 13, 2006. ........................................................................................ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Chair Holman: Good evening. I would like to call the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, the first one of this year, for Wednesday, January 10 to order. Would the Secretary call the roll, please? Commissioner Burt: I believe Commissioner Garber I here and just stepped out of the room. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. This is the time on the agenda when any member of the public who wishes to speak to an item that is not on the agenda, if they would care to speak to an item again any topic that is not on the agenda they can do so at this time. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Chair Holman: It appears we have no cards. Let the record show that Commissioner Garber has joined us. Commissioners, we have a very full agenda this evening and I will commit to you to follow my own guidance by saying that while we don’t abandon our charge as Commissioners we also do our best to be concise and to the point in our deliberations this evening. So with that we will go to item number one. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Chair Holman: I apologize for my voice this evening. It seems to be suddenly abandoning me. The first item tonight on our agenda is a request by Prometheus Real Estate Group on behalf of Park Village Peninsula, LLC for a Tentative Map for a proposed residential infill development. The map is required in order to merge eight parcels into one. An Environmental Assessment and Negative Declaration has been prepared. Would Staff like to make a presentation? UNFINISHED BUSINESS Public Hearings." 1.1072 Tanland Avenue [06-PLN-0010~: Request by Prometheus Real Estate Group on behalf of Park Village Peninsula,/LL~ for a Tentative Map to merge eight parcels (approx. 5.7 acres) into one (n_,gt"fo_r condominium purposes) for a proposed residential infill development. En~iro..~ental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration hasbeen prepared. Zone/D~rict: RM-30. /Mr. Curtis Williams, A~stant Director: Lorraine Weiss will make this presentation and then I believe the City A~ey has some follow up comments. " Ms. Lorraine ),Veiss, Contract Planner: Good evening Planning Commission. I will keep my comments/b~ef but just to let you know the applicant is proposing to merge the eight parcels into one on ~.7-acre site in order to add 12 new units to the existing multiple family development. The ~(chitectural Review Board reviewed the design for the actual 12 units and it was approved wi~conditions. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I would like to indicate that this item was actually scheduled for the December 13 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting and was postponed because we received questions from Chair Holman that we wanted to respond to but in addition to that there were some the Tentative Map that we wanted to have made. Those corrections have been made and in front of you tonight at your places is a memo that consolidates some received from Chair Holman as well as Commissioner Keller that should respond answer those questions. I won’t go through those questions right now. I do want to indicate though that we did find one additional correction that be made to the Tentative Map and that is between Lots 14 and 15 there needs to indicating that the parcel line will be removed. The applicant has provided to me toni a revised Tentative Map and should this project get recommended for approved ~ be forwarded to the City Council the City Council will receive the revised map. If you h~any questions I would be happy to answer them. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Commissioners, Staff at this time? any clarifying questions for Ms. Melissa Tronquet, Deputy City Attorney: I just wante~one reminder that the Commission’s discretion is limited tonight because this of a Tentative Map. The design of the project is not before you and that essentiall that what you are looking at is whether the map conforms to the approved design. As it has already been approved by the HRB and essentially the scope review is limited to the items described on the map and you all have a copy of that. Chair Holman: I believe your intention was it h approved by the ARB, and so for purposes of. The Commission has purview over the desi approved by the ARB, it had been the architectural design has been approved. ect on the map. Is that correct? Ms. Tronquet: The items described on th that is correct. that you have not the design of the project itself Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. Commissioners have any question: that I have no cards from the public on this item. Do Commissioner Sandas: that we had another Tentative we didn’t approve it. Does uestion, I recall during my tenure on the Commission approval and ifI recall correctly there would be a problem if l true this evening as well? Ms. Tronquet: That have. An Essentially it is limited to the findings in the document that you that it is limited scope so it would be a problem. Chair Holman:amissioners? Commissioner Keller. er: I would just like to express a concern that it appears that for the BMR units~ I realize that may or may not be part of the Tentative Map discussion, I think it is not but I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 would just like to express a concern that it looks like the square footage of the dwelling units was used for the three BMR units as opposed to consideration of the fact that these have private garages. I do not think that the private garages were taken into account in terms of the three BMR units. If they had been taken into account I think there would be four BMR units. So t/hat is a concern that I have in terms of that equation that took place. /.Chair Holman: Other Commissioners? Commissioner Burt. / Commissioner Burt: IfI could just ask Staff one final clarification in terms ofouA!purview. The first finding requires that the proposed map is not consistent, this would be a bAa, sqs for denial, with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. W~’~lon’t have that. That is the Califomia State Code Section, correct? Ms. Tronquet: Yes, the government code. Commissioner Burt: Can you briefly summarize the scope.o~:in what way our general plan 9 "conformance ~s part of our purwew tomght and ~n what ~tas not. What are the boundaries of that particular section? Mr. Williams: I think the boundaries of that are if)fie subdivision layout in some way is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan then t~dre could be a basis for denial of it. I think as indicated in the Staff Report the land use desig ,~,~tion and densities and such are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but if there were so~thing about the layout or not having appropriate circulation or something like that that is indicated in the Comprehensive Plan then that could be a basis. We don’t have a specific plan that d~als with this area but the Comp Plan would still apply. Commissioner Burt: Thank you./ Chair Holman: Commissioner Gabber. Commissioner Garber: My qt~6~tions were answered primarily in our previously hearing. However, I did want to ask I~,fielieve this is outside of the area of the, it is not even being called an area plan at the moment/but the study area that is further to the south, is that correct? That was essentially adjacent to~... /Mr. Williams: The Ei{st. Meadow, Fabian Way area. Commissioner Garber: Yes. This is outside of that area? Commissior~r Garber: By a significant amount? Mr. Williams: It does extend up West Bayshore but yes, several blocks at least. 1 2 3 4 5 Commissioner Garber: Thank you./~/ /Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert. ~ Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a technical question. I did a quick calculation on the area!0"fthe lots and the buildings. I want to make sure that my analysis is correct here. The reason~vhy we are looking at this is one parcel that is bridging a street, is that the L-shaped parcel piece that we are making, the dog leg, and the rectangular portion with the rounded corners in th~ middle if we were to take those and separate them out and make those two distinct parc%lgthe middle parcel couldn’t support the additional FAR nor could it make the necessary ope0i~pace and that is why the L-shaped parcel needs to be included as part of that lot line merger7!’ Ms. Weiss: That i~ correct. / 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Chair Holman: Okay. As a part of the StaffReport, which I atri. sure Commissioners did read, 17 there are changes that have also been made to the findings noi~ber one and number four. So I 18 see no other questions from Commissioners so we could er)[ertain a motion. Commissioner 19 Garber./ / 21 MOTION 23 Commissioner Garber: I would move that we acge~pt the Staff’s report specifically that 1072 24 Tanland Avenue be recommended for approval 6fthe Tentative Map in order to merge the eight 25 parcels into one./ 26 27 Chair Holman: Hearing a second? Comn~igsioner Sandas. 29 SECOND ¯ 30 / 31 Commissioner Sandas: Second. rib33Chair Holman: Commissioner er, would you care to speak to your motion? 34 / 35 Commissioner Garber: No, t,bf~nk you. 36 // 37 Chair Holman: Commissipner Sandas? 38 39 Commissioner Sandas:/No thanks. 40 /41 Chair Holman: I hav, e a clarification of the motion potentially One is would that include I 42 would presume the~ddmon of the lot line removal between Lots 14 and 15, would that be 4443 correct? 45 Commission er: Yes. Would that be included? That is what the Staff is recommending. 46 1 2 3 4 5 Mr. Williams: It will be included, yes. Commissioner Garber: Do we need to make specific? // / Mr. Williams: I don’t think you need to make a specific motion we know that needs to be do/ne./6 It is a technical correction we will make./ 7 ,/ /8 Commissioner Garber: Thank you./ 9 / 10 Chair Holman: Then the second would be if it was the intention of the motion to’include the new 11 findings for number one and number four or use what is in the draft ordinances,/What is the 12 intention of the maker of the motion?/ /13 / 14 Commissioner Garber: I would intend to use the new ones because it was my assumption that 15 those are essentially replacing, updating or informing the previous de~’~ription, is that correct? /16 / 17 Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas, you agree with that?!/18 / 19 Commissioner Sandas: Yes./ 2O / 21 Chair Holman: Okay. Any other comments about the mo/t~on? Commissioner Keller. 22 / 23 Commissioner_Keller: I assume you mean Tanland Dp(ve and not Tanland Avenue. 24 / 25 Commissioner Garber: Thank you, yes. 26 / 27 MOTION PASSED (7-0)/ 29 __Chair Holman:__ Seeing no other hands weg~n vote on the motion. All those in favor say aye. 30 (ayes) Opposed? None. So that passes ~n/a seven to zero vote. Thank you Commissioners. 31 / 32 Mr. Williams: Madam Chair if we could just take a minute to get the projector up and running /,,..33 and change places here for a couple/of Staff members. We will be ready ~n about two minutes. 34 / 35 Chair Holman: Okay. While Stg,ffis doing that I believe we have a Commissioner who has a 36 statement to make. 38 Commissioner Garber: Ye m going to exclude myself from this conversation although I do 39 not have a financial confli}zt with this item I had found myself having discussions with a potential 40 interested party in this pr/dperty prior to this landing in thePlanning Commission. So I feel it is 41 best ifI exclude mysel~rom the conversation. Thank you. 42 /43 Chair Holman: Th~fik..,yo~u~ Commissioner Garber, we will get back to you as soon as possible. 44 So if it is agreeable with StaffI will go ahead and introduce the item. 45 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 The second item on our agenda is to review and recommen~J~Wzone change to Service 2 Commercial District and a Comprehensive Plan use d~ation amendment to Service 3 Commercial for the following property, 4329 El C,~ino Real, the Palo Alto Bowl property. The 4 property is currently zoned RM-15 and RM-30//’The property is currently designated for multi- 5 family land use in the Comprehensive Pla~ 6 / 7 We did have this item come to us pr~iously. The public comment period was held open so I believe we do have cards from t~l~/public on this item. So if Staffis ready for a presentation. 4329 El Camino Real (Paio Alto Bowl): Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation of a Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The proposed zone district is Service Commercial (CS) and the proposed land use designation is Service Commercial. This property is currently designated Multiple Family in the Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: RM-15 and RM-30 of the CEQA Guidelines. Mr. Williams: Actually we are not but I can go ahead and start. You did see this item on a December meeting and continued it due to lack of time. There were a handful of neighbors who spoke about their concerns and since that time the Staff has met with those neighbors and I think provided you with some summary of their issues related particularly to traffic, school safety for the kids, to some extent for proximity of a couple of the neighbors to the rear of the property, and you will see that you have received several letters from some of those neighbors addressing several of those issues. Our recommendation for this project was and is for Service Commercial zoning to provide continued retail use on that property or the potential for that and/or mixed use. We understand that even if there are issues about some of the adjacencies and such we still would feel that a commercial use towards E1 Camino is very appropriate. That could be accomplished in a number of ways one of which is to apply the CS and then through design review we would anticipate that likely would be a transition from commercial in the front of the property to the residential to the rear. There is currently an RM-30 zoning on most of the property but RM-15 towards the rear, which does currently provide some transition of a lesser density in that vicinity of the property. Julie is here and I am going to let her add to that. I have just briefly summarized some of the issues and our recommendation. Ms. Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager: Thanks, Curtis. I am sorry I was late I didn’t realize you were going to get through that item so quickly. I just wanted to provide you with an update on the additional outreach to the neighborhood that we conducted after we last met on December 6 and also give you some responses to the issues that were raised at that December 6 meeting. Then I was going to give you a summary of the prototypes again and also respond to Commissioner Keller’s email that he sent today. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 2 First of all, after the December 6 meeting and issues that had primarily been raised by the 3 residents at that meeting were traffic, particularly safety issues related to traffic, and then school 4 impacts. After the meeting we met with the City’s contract traffic engineer to go over the traffic 5 report. He confirmed the findings in the original report and further explained some of the assumptions in the report. That information was included in the Staff Report that went to you. As far as the impacts to the school district I had spoken to a representative from Los Altos School District in early November prior to you meeting and had explained to the person that I spoke to that the proposed rezoning is not a change to housing but rather from housing. The person I spoke to indicated that any housing from the current zoning on the site should have already been factored in their future student generation projections. Then last week we met with several residents from the area to discuss the project and the impacts and their concerns. As indicated in the StaffReport the major issues for them again were the increased traffic from the project particularly relating to safety impacts. They also were concerned about intensification of use on the property itself. You have received several emails today that were forwarded to you and those pretty much I guess summarize or provide more detail to what I just described transpired at the meeting. One of the things that they were concerned about was intensification in general and development of housing on the site either in a mixed use configuration and standalone was also a concern because of the added students that could go to the Los Altos School District. Today we received an email with several questions from Commissioner Keller, which I want to read into the record with the responses. First of all, his first comment was should the site map with existing zoning, Attachment D to the report, say ’Dinah’s Court’ rather than ’Tamarack Court’ as shown in Exhibit A to Exhibit B to this report. He is correct it should be Dinah’s Courts and in explanation our GIS is in transition from one system t~ another and we are still using an old map. So some of the names haven’t been changed. We have changed the zoning so that we have the accurate information there but some of the names haven’t been changed. So when we finally transition totally and we have the new map all of those names will be correct. The second comment was the Korve Engineering] analysis states that the existing bowling alley generates 95 AM peak hour trips. How is this number derived and why is it so different than the number nine measured by the Monroe Park Neighborhood Association? We used in our analysis the industry standard from ITE, which is the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and they set the standard for trip generation for bowling alley use. That is where the 95 trips came from. The reason there is such a difference is that this is considered an underutilized site. The current bowling alley is not functioning as a viable bowling alley and that is the way we analyze traffic is that you assume that it is functioning as a utilized property. His third comment, the pass-by figures in the Korve Engineering Report are stated as 25 percent in AM and 50 percent in PM yet the daily trip reductions are a full 50 percent. The [columner] reduction figures to the right are consistent with the 25 percent AM and 50 percent PM split. Is there an error in the daily calculation, if so, what should the numbers be? The daily traffic is not 1 used for traffic calculations. When I asked our traffic consultant about this he did say that 2 Commissioner Keller was correct although it doesn’t make any difference regarding the analysis 3 because we don’t use daily traffic. It would probably be if you look at the average it would be 4 about a 40 percent as opposed to the 50 percent but the calculations are really used for the AM 5 and the PM peak which is where we used the 50 percent and the 25 percent. 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 His fourth comment, the pass-by figures assume a minimal adjustment in routes to visit the site, what data is there to support the extent of trip linking and the degree to which trip linking adjusts the route to and from the primary destination? The analysis includes both a pass-by and the diverted trips together. ITE establishes a percentage of diversion based on studies. The ’no specific radius’ is identified for the individual project for the diversion. The diversion isn’t defined but is considered in any future analysis of an actual project that would be considered and at that time we would have more of the actual trip generation and where those trips are going. We would be evaluating the pass-by diverted trips impact on the ingress and egress and circulation with a traffic report when there is an actual project. The final question is what are the policies regarding initiation of traffic studies or traffic calming for the Monroe Park Neighborhood and for evaluating the ethicality of a traffic light at Monroe and El Camino? Would these.studies or evaluations best be done as part ofa rezoning or as part of a specific proposed development project or independent of either? We would do any traffic studies in conjunction with a project once it was defined and filed with the City. As far as traffic calming any traffic calming program has to be related to a Safe Routes to School program, which this area qualifies for and the Council would have to initiate the program. So that takes care of our responses to Commissioner Keller’s comments. Then I just wanted to go briefly over the three prototypes that we had prepared previously. What you see before you and probably Curtis talked about it a little bit is the zoning and that the zoning in this area is primarily CS in fact either higher density residential or CS. Along E1 Camino there is only one little area of CN and that is along E1 Camino Way. As you remember we had three prototypes that we had looked at for this site. One was a commercial prototype, one is a mixed use prototype, and one is a residential prototype for the existing land use designation and zoning. The first prototype, the commercial, we used the maximum FAR of .4 which is roughly 37,800 square feet on the property. The prototype shows a one story building with a little bit of two story and this building is similar in size to the current bowling alley, which I believe is around 34,000 square feet. The access to the site is a problem particularly to the rear because the street frontage, the only way you can get access to this site is from the street frontage along El Camino but the sides are locked in by the adjacent development. Retail use on the property is constrained because of the size and configuration of the property. Retailers wouldn’t want to necessarily be located at the back of the property where they are not visible from the street. The second prototype is a residential mixed use alternative. The orange shows the commercial and the yellow shows the residential development. The development for this site shows sort of a stacked development towards the front of the property and is less dense towards the rear, which is adjacent to the single family in the back. Access is also a problem but the way this prototype 1 has addressed that is trying to provide a central lane bisecting the area and it could allow retail 2 uses further back on the site. This shows a maximum FAR of .6 for the residential and that 3 would result in 65 units and the .4 FAR for the retail would again result in 37,800 square feet of 4 commercial. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The third prototype shows the existing land use and zoning for the site and development under this scenario would result in 55 units with a .6 FAR. That summarizes the analysis that we prepared. Finally, I just wanted to remind you of the three questions that I asked you the last time if you could kind of focus on those. The first one is should the site remain residential or convert to commercial? If you think that the site should convert to commercial would it be more appropriate as a CN, Neighborhood Commercial or Service Commercial, the CS zoning district? Then also if you think that it should be commercial should the uses on the site be restricted to retail only or should mixed use and other uses be allowed? That concludes our presentation. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. We have clarifying questions from I am sure several Commissioners. Commissioner Sandas: This is a clarifying question. Julie, refresh my memory please. If the parcel were to be zoned Neighborhood Commercial is mixed use allowed in Neighborhood Commercial? Ms. Caporgno: Yes it is. Commissioner Sandas: Okay. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I just want to make sure that I understand this and that the public does as well. If we recommended nothing, no change, and the City Council did nothing, no change, the owner of the property or developer could come along and put 55 housing units on the property? Ms. Caporgno: That is correct. Commissioner Tuma: If we recommended CS and that is what City Council did then a developer could come along and put either 37,000 square feet of commercial in a commercial only which is alternative one, or this is where I want to make sure I understand, under the mixed use scenario could they put both 65 units as well as up to 37,000 square feet of commercial space? Ms. Caporgno: That is correct. Commissioner Tuma: Okay, thanks. Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Lippert: Just to clarify, we are only looking at that one parcel we are not looking at the Motel 6 parcel at all or thinking of that at all? Ms. Caporgno: That is correct. Vice-Chair Lippert: If we were to recommend the CS zone here and somebody wanted to merge those two lots that would also have to go through a public hearing, correct? Ms. Caporgno: That is correct. They would have to come in and go through the ARB for design review of any project that they were proposing. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Mr. Williams: If I could just add to that, please. Julie mentioned ARB, if it were a mixed use development it would require Site and Design Review, which would go through ARB, Planning Commission, and City Council. Chair Holman: As long as it had more than four housing units, is that correct? Mr. Williams: Right, as long as it is more than four housing units. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I understand that some of the properties on at least one and possibly two of the properties on Monroe Drive behind the subject property have easements for part of those properties for parking use for the subject property. I am wondering the extent to which that parking has been taken into account with respect to the calculations and I am wondering how that would affect potential development of the site. Ms. Caporgno: The easements on the rear of the property have not been taken into account for the calculation of development it is just the site as shown here. I believe that the easements extend beyond that. As far as the easements affecting subsequent development I believe that the easement is between the property owner and the owner of the bowling alley for parking use for the bowling alley. So when that use goes away then the easement would go away also but I would defer to our City Attorney to find out if there is any additional comments that she would like to make regarding that. Ms. Tronquet: Not at this time. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, clarifying question? Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes. I guess I have the most recent copy of the neighborhood commercial table. We are within a proximity of a number of hotels, the Motel 6 of course which is existing, the Courtyard by Marriott, there is the Cabana Hotel, and there is also Dinah’s Court hotel, which is just up the road a little bit. If we were to go through the CS zone would allow - that is a permitted use in CS, but in CN it is not a permitted use. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Caporgno: That is correct. Vice-Chair Lippert: So if we were adopt the CS zone somebody would be able to have a hotel on that site, to redevelop that as a hotel. I am only saying this because I am looking at the surrounding areas but with CN they would be prohibited from doing that or can an overlay zone be created there? Ms. Caporgno: I believe an overlay zone could be created but the strict CN would not allow that use so you would have to recommend an overlay on the property. Curtis, do you want to add something to that? Mr. Williams: Well, you wouldn’t necessarily have to create an overlay. We have a hotel overlay that could be applied to the property. That overlay allows an FAR of only .6 though as opposed to the 2.0 that the CS zone and our other commercial districts allow now. Vice-Chair Lippert: So it is a lower density. Mr. Williams: It is a lower density but it would then allow a hotel. Vice-Chair Lippert: The reason I am raising this just so everybody knows is that we had the Hyatt Rickey’s site and that has gone away it has become housing now. So I know that City Council has been looking for other sites for hotels. So the question is whether this is a desirable site or not. Chair Holman: Any other questions by Commissioners for purposes of clarification? Seeing none we do have a number of cards from the public. I didn’t count them but it appears to be about a dozen. We will respect them in the order they were received and numbered just so you know that is being done. You will have three minutes to speak. This is a continuation of the last hearing so some of you may have spoken before. If you could help us, I don’t want to curtail your free speech rights at the same time if you could kind of contain your comments to new information that has come to your attention that you would like to bring to our attention that would be helpful. If you are so moved to do otherwise then.you certainly have that right. The first speaker is Mark Hudak and the second speaker is Mary Pat O’Connell. Mr. Mark Hudak, Burlingame: Madam Chair, good evening. I represent the families who own this site and also own the Motel 6 site next door. It has always been our intention to market these properties together so that they could be developed together in a rational and beneficial project for the good of Palo Alto. To that end over the last several months we have been working closely with the Staffto assure that there is appropriate zoning that allows a rational project to be done and one that also satisfies the direction that was given to Staff by City Council. All of those resulted in proposed downzoning of the site from its then current residential. We were okay with that and worked with Staff provided that we could preserve the best options and the most options for the site including the opportunity to do a hotel which would yield transit occupancy tax for the City if an 1 appropriate buyer could be located, to preserve retail if an appropriate buyer could be located, 2 and to preserve mixed use residential if an appropriate developer could be located. Although the 3 CS zoning does represent a down-zoning from the current residential we felt as if we could live 4 with it and the zoning on the adjacent site because we could still find buyers who could do a 5 good project for the City. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Tonight I can’t give you any more specifics about what might be developed on the site. We continue to look for a buyer, we have talked to hotels, we have talked to retailers, we have talked to mixed use developers, and everybody is interested in the site. Everybody is waiting to see what the ultimate zoning will be. I hope you choose wisely. More important, any specific project that comes forward to you will have to be judged on its merits including the traffic that that particular use will generate and the kind of mitigations that can be done for that particular project. It is unfair to judge the zoning in advance of seeing what that project might be. So please, leave our options open and then use your discretion when a specific project is brought forward. I would urge you not to downzone as far as Commercial Neighborhood or any more restrictive zoning because that would start to look a lot like spot zoning. It would make it very difficult to do a good project, make it impossible almost to do a project in tandem with Motel 6, and probably would not satisfy the objectives that were given to us by the City Council and by your Staff that we have been working with. So although those things considered I would urge you tonight to please adopt the CS zoning which makes the most sense for everybody, the City, the developers, and we hope the neighborhood. Thank you very much for your time. Chair Holman: Thank you. Mr. Hudak: I would answer any questions if you had any. Chair Holman: We may come to that. Mr. Hudak: Thank you very much. Chair Holman: Thank you; Mary Pat O’Connell to be followed by Randy Popp. Ms. Mary Pat O’Connell, Palo Alto: Good evening members of the Commission. I am a 20 year resident of Monroe Park. You can see from my green sticker that I am joined by others from our neighborhood. I am here to do the introduction for s.ome of our neighbors who have attended City meetings and have prepared concerns and issues and a recommendation on the rezoning of the Palo Alto Bowl property. We are long time residents of the City of Palo Alto and Monroe Park. As Palo Alto residents we understand the City’s need for both sales tax revenue and housing. We understand that El Camino is a commercial corridor and we want to work with the City to make a good development. Given the state of the bowl and motel properties a good development could well be an improvement but we want to ensure the safety and livability of our neighborhood. Any 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 redevelopment of the bowl particularly the bowl and Motel 6 parcels together will have a major 2 impact on our neighborhood. We feel strongly that rezoning the bowl parcel is not a small step it 3 is a very significant step~ Rezoning sets the direction, specifies an outcome, and creates 4 momentum. Service Commercial sets up potentially the most profitable use for the City but also 5 the most problematic for our neighborhood including things like regional big box, big hotels, and 6 even dirty industry that terminology is yours not ours. For reasons that we will present to you this evening we feel we could support a change from the existing residential zoning to Commercial Neighborhood, CN, but we oppose the Negative Declaration and we oppose CS zoning. My neighbor Randy will talk about our recommendation and the rationale. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you, Ms. O’Connell. Randy Popp is our next speaker to be followed by Caroline Judy. Mr. Randy Popp, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am an 11 year resident of Monroe Park and an architect having spent the better part of my 20 year career working in the City of Palo Alto. I am here this evening to offer a recommendation. I oppose CS zoning for this site. CS zoning creates virtually the highest impact for adjacent neighbors of any other zone designation. The Staff Report identifies the type of retailer who could use this property as "large footprint retailers such as Best Buy or Target with structured or underground parking." The bowling alley and Motel 6 are being sold as one property, which once aggregated, will lend itself to this high impact use. Allow me to briefly summarize how the City Municipal Code defines the CS zone. It is intended to create and maintain areas accommodating citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian oriented shopping areas and generally require automotive access or parking of commercial service vehicles. CN on the other hand assures a great degree of compatibility with an adjoining R-1 neighborhood. Again, to summarize the CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, is intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood under regulations that will assure maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas. Though CS would make the bowl lot consistent with other commercial properties fronting on El Camino including the Motel 6 1 would like to note that most CS parcels are separated from R-1 neighborhoods by transition parcels, which are zoned at some level of RM. The Staff Report states that CS zoning matches the surrounding land use but fails to account for the R-1 parcels directly adjacent to the property. Through brief conversations with Staff I understand that the City does ~ot want to use unusual overlay or other methods for controlling the outcome of development. This leaves the zoning itself as the sole direction. I urge you not to adopt the Negative Declaration for this site. Although standards that define the criteria for CEQA analysis may show the change to CS as having minimal impact other issues regarding traffic, noise, and air quality must be evaluated specifically over the course of the day not just at peak hours. I urge you not to support rezoning the site to CS as you are contemplating. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I am aligned with others in the neighborhood in feeling I could support rezoning to CN but would like to offer another option for your consideration. Changing only the portion of the site that is currently designated RM-30 to CS provides an interesting alternative. If the current RM zoning present at the rear of the site were to be maintained much of our concerns regarding the transition to R-1 neighborhood would be reduced. Additionally, this would limit the overall size of potential development thereby encouraging retail along El Camino of more moderate size that would better serve the immediate neighborhood. I believe this better aligns with our citywide goals regarding best practice for smart growth planning and suggest you ask Staff to evaluate this option. I think Caroline Judy will speak next to address studies. Thank you for your time. Chair Holman: Yes, Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Could you just clarify? I am not sure whether I heard one portion of your statement correctly. When you were talking about the rear part of the site you were advocating retaining it as RM-15, correct? Mr. Pooo: Correct. Commissioner Burt: Okay, thanks. Chair Holman: Our next speaker is Caroline Judy to be followed by Donna Simonides. Ms. Caroline Judy, Palo Alto: I am a 16 year resident of Monroe Park. I am here to talk to you about the studies that we would like to see and our concerns for safety and livability. We believe an area study is warranted because of recent and proposed developments that are affecting our neighborhood. In the City of Palo Alto you are obviously aware of the Hyatt Rickey’s conversion to high density residential, the Elks Lodge potential conversion to high density residential, the traffic calming on Charleston that is now forcing traffic onto San Antonio and cut-through traffic in our neighborhood, and in the City of Los Altos a 190-room Marriott Hotel on the corner of Los Altos Avenue and El Camino. The City of Los Altos just recently approved and opened an Elephant Pharmacy just another block away from Monroe Drive. Whole Foods was recently opened on again the same area. The City of Mountain View is currently contemplating putting a Home Depot at San Antonio and E1 Camino and we currently have a Wal-Mart at San Antonio and El Camino. Regional development on El Camino in our area is already very intensive. The San Antonio Shopping Center, the hotels and motels that were mentioned earlier by the Commission members, office buildings, we have a car wash and car dealerships. Congestion is very high on San Antonio at California Avenue, El Camino and Charleston. San Antonio and E1 Camino is a Level F intersection. It has the longest wait times in Santa Clara County. Charleston, Alma, and El Camino may now become Level F intersections directly as a result of traffic calming on Charleston. How is traffic supposed to exit a CS zoned regional retail center? San Antonio and El Camino are the only reasonable access or cut-through our neighborhood. Congestion resulting from development has already increased our cut-through traffic. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Traffic is a major concern of ours. Monroe Drive and Miller are part of the Santa Clara County and Palo Alto bike path system. Our Safe Route to School hasn’t been very safe over the last 20 years. He comer of Monroe and El Camino, commercial driveways on El Camino, and the intersection of Los Altos Avenue and El Camino have been the site of many pedestrian/bicycle/car accidents and near misses including both of my children who were hit on their bicycles in this area. We have no sidewalks in our neighborhood. There is no controlled ingress/egress onto El Camino from Monroe Drive. In 2003 we worked with the City to try to get some traffic evaluation on Monroe Drive. We showed 1,083 trips on the front section of Monroe. We oppose the Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration states the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. Although compliant with CEQA the Negative Declaration was based on a consultant’s study of traffic at an imaginary industry standard bowling alley. We request that the Clerk enter into the record the results of our neighborhood conducted traffic study and we would request that you consider this deterministic decision. Your decision will have an impact on our neighborhood. We urge you to carefully consider this. Donna Simonides will now talk about the impact on our adjoining R-1 properties. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. Donna Simonides and the next speaker will be Maria Franke. Ms. Donna Simonides, Palo Alto: I am a 15 year resident of Monroe Park and I am here to talk about the impact ofrezoning on the adjoining homes, those homes on Monroe opposite Motel 6 and backing up to the motel and bowl properties. I represent one of those. We oppose CS zoning as it allows full commercial development next to our neighboring R-1 properties without buffer. CS zoning is more likely to result in development to the lot line putting structures and loading docks in my and my neighbor’s front and back yards. CS zoning is also a risk to smart planning and smart planning transition zones. There are existing R-1 parcels as part of the easements in the back of the bowl property that do not appear in the proposed developments that are being shown at these meetings. We are concerned about potential noise, light, and air pollution and other nuisances, which should be addressed by an EIR. We currently have safety problems caused by trucks, busses, and live-in vehicles on the first block of Monroe Drive, the first block in from El Camino. This is along our children’s safe route to school. There are over 40 children that exit this neighborhood to go to the Los Altos School District. These problems would be exacerbated by potential uses as a commercial parking area especially if egress is allowed onto Monroe Drive. We request the Commission consider CN zoning versus CS zoning. We are a neighborhood. When we were at the last meeting there was lots of discussion about the property on San Antonio Road and potential neighborhood services for them. The only services that we can easily walk to are in Mountain View or Los Altos. We ask that you direct Staff to address the legal issues relative to easements, zoning issues, and smart planning implications of R-1 properties immediately adjacent to a proposed CS zone. We ask that you direct Staff to conduct a full EIR to create an accurate baseline for traffic. We ask that you address issues such as air quality and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 noise. A formal area study is needed done in conjunction with Los Altos, Mountain View, and Cal Trans since we are at the intersection of these t.hree areas. We ask that you direct Staff to work with the Monroe Park Neighborhood Association to plan and implement traffic calming measures in our neighborhood. Please direct Staff to plan mitigation of negative impact of the development that will take place along a Safe Route to School. That’s my comments. Thanks. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Maria Franke to be followed by Peter Maresca. Okay. Peter Maresca to be followed by Steve Brocksen. Mr. Peter Maresca, Palo Alto: I am a 20 year resident of!Vionroe Park and I am here to present a conclusion wrapping up what we have said as a member of the Monroe Park neighbors. We, as has been stated, are not against the idea of development. We have a stake in the thriving City of Palo Alto. We also don’t feel like we have been blindsided in any way. We understand that we bought our homes in a neighborhood backing up a commercial zone and we do accept this. We want to work with the City but a CS zoning, a big box friendly CS zoning, especially one based on an erroneous Negative Declaration is not a good way to start this working relationship. We are going to have to work together when it actually comes to developing this property. Now it was mentioned that developing the property that we should just go ahead with the CS zoning and worry about the development and traffic issues later. Why not just rezone it now to the maximum and worry about what is going to happen later on? I feel this Rumsfeldian logic is not going to be to the benefit of either the City or the neighborhood. We need to have a plan such as a CN zoning that will allow for proper retail and commercial development as well as keeping the neighborhood safe. Safety is most important to our neighborhood that is the main reason we are not concerned as much about smells, we are not concerned about people coming in from out of town, we are concerned about the safety of our families and our children. IfI were to just come here out of nowhere and look at the plans, ifI were a city planner from Mars and dropped in and looked at the map I would say yes, that orange space there that should all be CS, that whole block. IfI were to look atthe reports in the so-called industry standards of the traffic study that has been done I would say sure it looks like there is going to be no impact. But I don’t live on Mars I live in Monroe Park and I understand what is going on in our neighborhood and I see how much traffic we have now and I know what is going to happen to our neighborhood. So I urge you to, it is probably too late for that, but I wish all of you could visit our neighborhood, walk our streets with no sidewalks, watch our children riding their bikes to school, and you can see that there is no way you can adopt a big box friendly CS zoning for this neighborhood. There is no way you could accept a Negative Declaration with work that really does not pertain to the neighborhood, as it exists now. So I urge you not to adopt the Negative Declaration and not to adopt the ordinance ofCS rezoning. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Steve Brocksen to be followed by Deirdre Crommie. Mr. Steve Brocksen, Palo Alto: I have been in the neighborhood for 26 years and I could have passed because everything has been said but not by me. I will just reiterate Peter’s thing that it is 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 a neighborhood. In 26 years there it has always been a neighborhood. We are not a bedroom 2 community that is why you can see this happened. It will just get bigger so we are not trying to 3 be a thorn in anybody’s side we are just trying to make sure that you understand that we all have 4 kids, grandkids now, and plan on staying in that area for a long time. The facts that they are stating are all true. If you could come and see in the morning or in the evening what we have there you will see why we want to preserve it not without progress but with as limited large-scale progress as we can. Thanks. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Deirdre Crommie to be followed by Carol Freeman. Ms. Deirdre Crommie, Palo Alto: I wrote a letter I would like to be put into the record. Those are copies for all of you. Thank you for your attention today. I am so proud of my neighbors. I moved to Monroe Drive six years ago and it is because of people like this that just spoke that I love the neighborhood. Most people don’t know we exist on Monroe Drive. So I would, like Pete said, encourage you to come off E1 Camino onto Monroe Drive and see how far back the street goes, how it loops around and branches onto other streets. We are really a wonderful neighborhood back there. The only thing that I can add to the eloquent statements of my neighbors is that I spoke to City Council some time ago when Rickey’s Hyatt was being developed. I was actually asked to speak by the highly organized neighborhood next door to us, which is the Wilkie Way neighborhood, and they were trying to reduce the density of the Rickey’s Hyatt redevelopment. At that point I was the sole person from Monroe neighborhood speaking and I just wanted to alert the City Council to protect our neighborhood from drive-through traffic. Now because we did not come out in high number there was no consideration made for our neighborhood in that development and we are going to suffer from that. We are already feeling much more traffic coming down El Camino Avenue due to the Charleston calming project, which I think is a good project but it is just creating a problem for us. I want you to imagine for a minute exiting my street, Monroe Drive, onto El Camino either trying to turn left or trying to turn right in the morning. It is pretty easy to turn right but it nearly impossible to turn left and that is how I drive my children to school in the morning. The reason why is because everyone is making U-turns at Monroe Drive. They are making U-turns to get to the various hotels that have no direct access from El Camino on one side of the street. The bowling alley/Motel 6 property development will fall exactly into that category. When people want to head north on El Camin0 from that property they have nowhere to go. There isn’t proper access. That is why I think it is not going to work as a big development site. We are already suffering as it is now. So I really encourage you to come down and take a look at the intersections near our neighborhood. Thank you very much. Chair Holman: Thank you, I appreciate your comments. Carol Freeman to be followed by Jonathan Luk. Ms. Carol Freeman, Palo Alto: We also wrote a letter and have copies to put it into the record. Mr. Williams: I should point out for the record that you did receive copies of anything that was submitted to the City today. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Freeman: I just want to reiterate what Deirdre what just said. I am also very proud of our neighborhood and I think it is just starting. A lot of us only learned about this in the last week. So this is how quickly our neighborhood is starting to organize. There are just some questions that I had and I don’t know ifI am allowed to address but one of the comments that were made was that the school district doesn’t have an issue with high density and that you have spoken with somebody is Los Altos. I am wondering if we could know who that was that you spoke to because that would be very helpful. It was surprising to me that 65 houses wouldn’t be something that the Los Altos School District would be concerned about. A lot of the focus has been CS, which of course I am concerned about but I am also very concerned about high density residential that is why our focus is on CN. If there is anyway that we could also be able to participate and understand who in the Los Altos School District feels that way it would be helpful to me. So that would just be my added comments on that in terms of my concern about the residential use. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Jonathan Luk is our final speaker. Mr. Jonathan Luk, Palo Alto: Good evening. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I am a three year resident of Monroe Park, a relative newcomer. Like everyone else here I chose the neighborhood because of what I found there. It is a charming neighborhood. I am one of the parcels that backs directly onto the bowling alley property so I am in the same situation with the easement uncertainty. Since I am not the original owner I believe there are also some legal uncertainties in the wording of my easement because in some places it refers to the original owner only and in other places it refers to the owners and any subsequent owners. I would like to speak to just the safety. A lot of people have said those things already. I have three young children that will be going to Los Altos schools in the next few years. As far as safety I am very concerned about the cut-through traffic. Our children don’t play in the front because cars routinely pass through our neighborhood at high speed. Since I am right behind the bowling alley I am right on the curve as people come off of El Camino. So I urge you to do full and due diligence on the studies for the impact on noise and safety for the benefit of the entire city and our neighborhood. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you and before you leave the microphone there are a number of people here in the public who have on the green tags. Can you tell you me if those people who have those green tags on do they all represent the exact same opinion? In other words, we have heard a couple of different thoughts like part of the party maybe be zoned one way and the back part be zoned another way, a lot of CN. So can you tell me if there is a consistency that could be identified that all of these green tags do represent? Mr. Luk: I don’t think I am the appropriate person to answer that question. I couldn’t confirm that or not but I believe that we all have a very serious interest in the safety and preservation of our neighborhood. Chair Holman: I think there is somebody who might be able to clarify the question. If you could come forward to the microphone and identify yourself it would be helpful. 1 Ms. Linnea Wickstrom, Palo Alto: If you are permitted to do so you might just ask those in the 2 audience who oppose CS to stand and then a separate question those who favor CN to stand. It 3 might give you a sense. Then you could further ask how many would support CS in the front 4 with RM-I 5. If you asked a series of questions we could give you a standing look. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: I am not sure we want to do a whole seriatim kind of survey. Can you not identify what the commonality is? Ms. Wickstrom: The commonality is we oppose CS except possibly we have not had time to sit down and study whether CS in the front and RM-15 in the back. That is something that came up yesterday about five or seven o’clock at night as a possibility for us to look at. So we haven’t discussed that with the neighborhood. We are opposed to CS. I think the common feeling is from the people I have talked to and from the email I’ve seen that we could support CN if we had the proper studies behind that to show the due diligence of the City and the Staff in planning for our neighborhood for any redevelopment. Chair Holman: Okay, so I guess if your opinion is consistent with the statements just made if you would just stand that would give us an indication. Okay, thank you very much for that clarification. Staff, you heard several comments and questions would you like to respond to some of those and then Commissioners might have follow up questions as well? Ms. Caporgno: I just have a few responses. First of all the traffic analysis which seems to be a major issue for several of the commenters, the traffic analysis was completed following the methodology used by the City for traffic analyses. The City Council has recently reaffirmed the use of the methodology that assumes the site is fully utilized. So that is why that analysis included or was conducted the way it was conducted. There was a comment that we didn’t address the air quality impacts. The air quality impacts are not considered significant. The size of the development and the trip generation does not meet the thresholds developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for even an air quality analysis and that is why most of the projects of this size that you see do not have air quality analyses because they aren’t considered significant under Bay Area Air Quality Management thresholds. The question about the school district and my conversation with a person from the School district, I didn’t intend to imply that the school district said they didn’t mind high-density development. The question was from them were we proposing to rezone the property to allow higher density development? I had informed them that the property currently was planned and zoned for higher density development and I assumed that they had assumed that development in any projects because school districts usually look at general plans to determine what their growth will be as far as student generation rates. The person I spoke to who I forget her name, she called me, and she said that that was fine. She had been concerned because she thought we were going to be rezoning to housing but if it was currently housing the rezoning district then that was assumed in their calculations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Curtis. Mr. Williams: Just a couple of other additions. There was mention about the easements to the rear and those being used in conjunction with the bowling alley for parking uses. Those areas are zoned R-1. They are part of those lots back there. In a new proposal that came through we would not allow parking back there on the R-I lots. So I think we are sort of starting over and that likely would end up being some kind of a buffer area between the existing residential and these lots. The other is that there were a few references to big box friendly and I just want to clarify that while there are some potential for a single user to use the site if you were just looking at that existing Palo Alto Bowl site we are talking 37,000 square feet which is no where near going to satisfy big box. If it was a user that combined the Palo Alto Bowl with the Motel 6 then it is more like 65,000 or something like that which still is a decent grocery store but it is not a Fry’s as we talked about last time or some of those that are typically well in excess of 100,000 square feet. So just to give you sort of a relationship in terms of the size of the commercial potential there that is kind of what we would be looking at. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: A few questions that all pertain to sizes of various things here. The RM-30 portion of this lot, what is the square footage of that? Ms. Caporgno: I have to look that up. If you want to ask your next question while I am looking that up. Commissioner Tuma: I would like to know the size of the RM-30 portion, the size of the RM-15 portion, and if we have it the dimensions of the easements that are being talked about on the back of the property. Also, while I recognize that the Motel 6 property is not before us tonight I think it is difficult at least for me to look at this without thinking of that in light of the comments that were made by the gentleman representing the people who are selling these properties. So if we have it handy I would also like to know the size of that parcel as well, and how it is currently zoned. Mr. Williams: I think I can handle the last one. The Motel 6 is currently zoned CS and I think it is 1.6 acres or 1.5 to 1.6 because the total is 3.7 of the two sites together and the bowl site is 2.17 I think or something like that. Ms. Caporgno: As far as the breakdown on the bowling alley site approximately 23 percent of it is RM-15, which would result in about 7.5 units, and 77 percent is RM-30 which results in 47 units. I don’t know how she came up with 55 units it is 52 or 53 units total on the site. What was the other question? Commissioner Tuma: The last question was if we knew the dimensions of the easements on the two properties that are behind it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 Ms. Caporgno: The easement I have provided by the property owner who is attempting to speak. There are two easements I believe. One is 4,967 square feet and the other one is 9,648 so approximately 15,000 square feet of easement in rear. I can pass this out to the Commission to you can see the configuration of the easement if that would be helpful. Commissioner Tuma: That would be very helpful, thanks. Ms. Caporgno: Amy, let me show you. Chair Holman: Maybe it would be helpful to put that on the overhead. Ms. Caporgno: It is the portion next to [Caston]. The bowling alley where word ’Caston’ is that is where the bowling alley site is and then portions of those two parcels next to it are the easement sites. Commissioner Tuma: Let me ask a clarifying question about that. Do the easements run the entire length of those sites along that line where it says ’Caston?’ Ms. Caporgno: That is my understanding. We received the easement information from the property owner where it says ’Parcel 3.’ The easement was with his wife 20 years ago and we have that information. I have been told that there is also an easement on the adjacent piece of property and it would make sense if you look at where the parking lot is. So that is an assumption on our part they are private easements so we don’t have any indication of them other than the information that was provided by the property owner. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: Are you saying that where it says ’Parcel 3’ that entire area that is encompassed as ’Parcel 3’ is the easement and the same thing on the other one that doesn’t have a number next to it? Ms. Caporgno: That is correct. Commissioner Tuma: Okay, thank you. MS. Caporgno: As Curtis had mentioned before that land is zoned and planned for R-1. Commissioner Tuma: Perfect. Thank you very much. Chair Holman: I guess to be fair here I could ask a question of the property owner if he would identify himself and then confirm if that information is accurate or not. So if you would like to step to the microphone, identify yourself, and confirm or clarify that information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Douglas Franke, Palo Alto: The easements are separate but they say it is one parcel but both property owners own their own easement. They are identical easements because they were copied from each other but it is supposed to be separated. Another comment is the realtor has the property listed as two vacant lots in the sale. So we don’t know what is going on with all that too, which is unusual. Commissioner Tuma: Let me ask you, you are saying the realtor who has the Palo Alto Bowl site listed for sale says that those two are two vacant sites? Mr. Franke: We think that is considered one and the one directly behind Motel 6 there is another vacant lot there that is the second one we believe. We don’t really know and we don’t know how they can list them if they are not really theirs. It is in our deed. Commissioner Tuma: Okay, thanks. Mr. Franke: Thank you. Chair Holman: I have a follow up question to that. They have been referred to as parking easements but they are also zoned R-1 so could I get some clarification on that or perhaps I have misunderstood that comment? Mr. Williams: What I am saying is that I don’t know historically how that arrangement worked it has been there for a long time. Today, if you came in we would treat that with a new development. We would treat that as an R-I parcel which doesn’t allow parking on it other than for the R-1 use on the parcel. So there may be an easement between the property owners but it isn’t going to allow this property owner to put commercial parking over on the R-1 side. Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: One of the things that concern me quite a bit and I have seen it in a lot of letters from residents in Monroe Park is the notion of the cut-through traffic, and the traffic safety, and the traffic calming. I am particularly interested in that because I live in a neighborhood that has what I think is wonderful traffic calming that started 30 years ago. We have a trial going on right now for some additional traffic calming. So what are the possibilities for looking at and working with the neighborhood to develop a traffic calming program to avoid the cut-through traffic? Also, they are in a very unique situation with getting their kids to school and they have the turning left people and the U-turn people and so forth on E1 Camino that makes it really difficult to cross and difficult to give their kids some independence in getting to and from school on their bicycles. It was my understanding that traffic calming programs are on hold but ..... Ms. Capor~no: You can add to this but as I had said previously traffic calming programs in general we are not initiating any new ones but if there is a Safe Route to School that is an exception but the Council would have to direct Staffto begin a traffic calming program in that area. So when this comes before Council there may be some direction to do that. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Sandas: One more question. I have forgotten, we talked about CN zoning and I think Commissioner Lippert asked a question about hotel overlay. Say that parcel were zoned CN and the property owner sold the parcels to someone who wanted to develop a hotel on that site, which from all the statistics that I have been reading in my packet that seems to be the best type of development for traffic in general, but if it were zoned CN and someone wanted to develop a hotel there what is the opportunity to do that? Ms. Caporgno: I think Curtis is looking up the hotel overlay district. My understanding is that first of all when we changed recently the CS and CN zoning districts we allowed a 2.0 FAR for hotels in the CS zone not in the CN zone. So we have a 2.0 FAR allowed for CS. If you applied an overlay on the CN then I believe it is a 0.6 FAR that would be allowed. Mr. Williams: That is correct and there is even some question whether the overlay language specifically talks about combining it with the Service Commercial and Community Commercial districts and it isn’t specific about the CN. So we would probably have to in addition amend the text here on the H Overlay to allow that to happen. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Firstly I think that I am very sympathetic with the comments of the people in the neighborhood about traffic calming. In the last few weeks while this matter has been pending I went around the neighborhood primarily by car and just sort of driving all the streets in the neighborhood to see where they went and what the configuration was. I also went out onto El Camino and even on a Saturday afternoon it did not look pleasant to try to figure out how to turn left from Monroe onto E1 Camino so I am certainly sympathetic with that. I didn’t make a U-turn basically I live onthe other side of Alma so I just turned right onto the traffic calmed Charleston. So I am very sympathetic with that as an issue. Also I note that Miller Avenue is a bike route. I notice that there is also a very interesting configuration of how the city limit line is in this neighborhood. It seems to sort ofzag in interesting ways through the neighborhood. So that is also a very interesting feature of the neighborhood. There was a suggestion by one of the residents, Mr. Popp, with respect to the potential for rezoning RM-30 to CS and keeping the RM-15 portion as RM-15. I am wondering if that is something that is feasible to do from a zoning perspective. Mr. Williams: It is certainly feasible to do it. The line is basically already drawn. The difference that makes is it essentially reduces number one the density in that rear portion because otherwise it is zoned to something like mixed use under CS that allows 30 units per acre. So it assures a lower density back there. Then because the total area of the CS is reduced there would be a commensurate reduction in the total amount of commercial square footage that could result from that. It is still allows a pretty substantial area of CS so I think many of the objectives that the Council was looking for could be met that way. So it is an interesting alternative. It is certainly feasible to do that there is no reason the Commission couldn’t. It is just a matter of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 does that achieve the flexibility in terms of commercial density that we are looking for and again it is still a pretty big parcel so maybe it does. I think our vision if this site were developed as mixed use as the prototype showed is that that probably is kind of what we think would happen. Most likely through the Site and Design Review process the ARB and the Commission and the Council would certainly be looking to make that kind of transition at the rear to the single family neighborhood back there. This might be a more certain way to let the neighborhood know up front that that is going to happen. Commissioner Keller: Hypothetically, yes? Ms. Caporgno: I was going to say the only drawback that I can see is if both sites were combinedlet’s say and a hotel went on the property you would have this one area that would be kind of locked in the back with approximately seven or eight multiple family units and then a hotel along the front. So it may be more of an access for those units. If it was a hotel use or some sort of full retail use along the remaining property that may be a problem but if it is as Curtis said developed with mixed use that area probably would be the lower density area anyway. Commissioner Keller: If under the assumption that the front portion were rezoned from RM-30 to CS and the back portion were to be retained as RM-15 ifa developer wished to put CS zoned development in the front portion and hypothetically the Motel 6 property would they have to put housing at the RM-15 or would they be able to use that site for part of the commercial parking? Mr. Williams: We would have to check in the zoning and see if it allows in multi-family - typically our residential zones don’t allow you to use the land for commercial parking. I don’t even with a use permit. Amy is saying it may allow for temporary like up to five years for that purpose. If they wanted to do something like that they would probably need to rezone with some restriction that it just be used for that purpose. Commissioner Keller: The final question to this series of hypothetical questions is since there is currently an easement on the back of the properties I believe there are two parcels that abut the bowling alley, is that correct? And those two parcels currently have a parking easement back there which presumably would under a redevelopment not be able to be used for parking because that is against the current City interpretation of how things work. I am wondering if you could compare the size of the buffer that would be provided from the RM-15 retention with the size of the buffer that is provided by that current parking easement on the R-1 property. Does that make sense? Mr. Williams: It does, I don’t know if we have the precise figures. What is the area? Ms. Caporgno: It is not too much different. It is a little bit larger than the - the RM-15 is about half an acre so that is about 21,000 or 22,000 square feet. The total of the easement is about 15,000 square feet. Commissioner Keller: So the idea is that currently the portion of the parking easement is essentially some sort of buffer there and presumably right now I think there is a fence that 1 separates that easement property, is that correct? Is there no fence there? There is a fence. I 2 understand that there is a fence that separates the R-1 portion where the residents live in the front 3 from the easement property in the back. So that essentially forms a buffer and the extent to 4 which that easement could be removed as part of the redevelopment and the fence go away I 5 think that that would allow for planting of shrubbery or whatever that would increase the buffer. 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: First, I don’t know that we are going to get good clarity tonight on these parking easement zones and who owns them and what can be done with them. So we may have to assume that they have the opportunity to continue to be somewhat of a buffer between the R-1 and the rear RM-15 zone. So I am interested in some of the same themes that several of my colleagues have been pursuing. If we turn to Attachment F, which is the trip generation study for three retail sites, there is a table on call it page 4. These are the trip generation calculations. Can Staff clarify those a little bit because the variable ifI understand it under ’office, bowling alley, nursery, wholesale, and shopping center,’ and just so the public understands these were done to look at two other parcels that we addressed in our previous meeting as well as this bowling alley so that is my understanding of why we have a mixture of these different uses compared here but it is still informative. Under the ’condominium and the motel’ first there is a daily rate under everything. The daily rate refers to what? It is really a comparative value it is not a quantitative number of trips, correct? Ms. Caporgno: I am going to defer the questions to our traffic engineer who is here tonight, Dennis Strnecker from Korve Engineering. So if he could respond I would appreciate it. Mr. Struecker: Those are vehicle trips. Chair Holman: Excuse me, could you state your name again? Mr. Struecker: I am Dennis Struecker from Korve Engineering. They are vehicle trips per unit. I think you are looking at the same item I am at the top of the page it shows the independent variable about three columns from the left. Commissioner Burt: Okay. So the unit is what you are calling the independent variable. Mr. Struecker: That is the unit of measurement for the land use, yes. Commissioner Burt: What I was trying to ask was what is listed under the daily rate is that the number of trips per that unit? Mr. Struecker: Per that unit, that is correct. Commissioner Burt: Okay. So we have a mixture here under ’office, bowling alley, nursery, and shopping center’ the unit is per 1,000 square feet. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 Mr. Struecker: Correct. 3 4 Commissioner Burt: Under condos and motel it is per essentially dwelling unit; 5 Mr. Struecker: Correct. Commissioner Burt: So when we are trying to make a comparison we have for condos or motels or residential units we have FAR that we can convert to square footage but per dwelling unit that hasn’t been done here. Is there a certain size assumption for a condo and a motel room? Mr. Stmecker: Not to my knowledge. What is an average condo? Probably somewhere between 1,000 and 1,200 square feet or something like that. Commissioner Burt: Then when you are talking about a motel room are we talking about the ancillary areas as opposed to the net area of the rooms? I am trying to figure out how we can correlate a trip generation for different uses because we are comparing apples and oranges here. A condo seems that in a very rough sense we can compare it to those other four uses, say it is 1,000 or 1,200 square feet versus 1,000 square feet on the other uses. Then the motel room does that include all of the common space and interior circulation of a motel or hotel and is that amortized per room? Mr. Struecker: No, it is just based on the number ofrooms~ So if they have a super-sized lobby for some reason and it took away a couple rooms then they could not rent those rooms so their trip generation would be lower. Commissioner Burt: I understand per room that is the number of trips but we have a certain amount of rooms that would be allowed to be built based upon a square footage, which is based upon a floor area. So if we say that we have a parcel size that will allow a given square footage of motel or hotel to be built how do we then convert that to number of rooms? You don’tdivide it by the net square footage of a room because you have a whole bunch of other square footage associated with a hotel or a motel. Mr. Struecker: Correct. So for instance the office that is gross square footage that includes the hallways, the restrooms, the lobby, the elevators, everything. So a motel architect could probably tell you to get a 50-room project you would have X square feet. I have no idea. Maybe it is 300 square feet per room, I don’t know but then it would be a mathematical exercise if that is what you want them to do to change motel to 1,000 square feet. Commissioner Burt: Right. I understand what exercise would need to be done. I was hoping to get some kind of an answer as to how that converts so that we can incorporate that in our recommendations tonight but it doesn’t sound like we have that at our disposal unless Staff can chime in on that. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 Mr. Williams: I think the motel/hotel scenario is different than the others. The others are pretty 2 specific like Dennis said an office and all that. In motels you get this mixture of rooms and I 3 would think it probably includes hallways and that kind of thing and you usually have restaurants 4 and little shops or something like that that gets added on in addition. So it is difficult to tell 5 there. I just wanted to point out that the scenarios that we have derived in the traffic analysis have not been for a motel. They all looked at either residential or commercial and not the motel specifically so we would have to go back and go back and look more carefully at a motel. Commissioner Burt: So the reason that I am exploring this is along the same lines as I think three fellow Commissioners so far have brought up this issue. If we were to be looking at the possibility of having the back half of the lot stay in RM-15 and the front half be either CS or CN, if it is CN we don’t provide much of an incentive for a hotel or a motel. So then the more likely outcome is that we would get a mixed use commercial which would be a density and a trip generation that would be higher in a CN than if we were to get possibly a hotel in a CS. In the CS we have a significant incentive for hotel. In a CN we don’t have a significant incentive. Now whether we would get a hotel in either of those remains to be a decision of the property developer but as the agent for the owners had mentioned there apparently has been discussion of and interest from a possible hotel developers. So in any event when we look at the trip generation is hotel approximately the same as motel? Mr. Struecker: Hotel is a little bit higher. You have people that go to hotels that aren’t staying there for other reasons. For a motel it is pretty much just going there for your room. There are restaurants and things like that in a hotel. Commissioner Butt: Yes but hotels also provide their own transportation to a great degree that is used by both customers and employees. Shuttle services are a common practice at hotels and are not the practice generally at motels. Mr. Struecker: I looked at the statistics today so they are fresh in my mind they are not a lot different but the hotel is a little bit higher. Commissioner Burr: Okay. All right so that is the consideration I am struggling with that with the CS incentive for hotels which would apply to motels as well we have a greater likelihood that someone would actually take advantage of that and then we get a low trip generation versus what we might have in other CS generations. We also don’t have the school impact and we have a very high revenue generation for the City. So I am interested in exploring that combination where we are looking at RM-15 in the back and whether CS at the front might be a good way to go but I don’t know if we have enough information to know the likelihood of a developer taking advantage of that FAR bonus that exists for the hotel. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, did you have questions? Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes. When the Council gave you their direction in terms of this they had specifically said that they wanted you to look at residential sites throughout the City, multi- family residential sites that could potentially be commercial sites that was the direction that they had given you. They did not specifically say CN did they or CS? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Caporgno: That is correct. We had identified these four sites as having residential zoning and land use designation that were used for commercial purposes. They had discussed changing them to commercial and then as we had discussed at the last meeting there was this discussion of limiting them to retail. So our recommendation is the CS but it was somewhat ambiguous as to whether or not the Council’s direction was for us to come back with something that would only allow retail or if there would be more flexibility and we felt given the configuration of this property as well as the other three you saw month, given the configuration and access constraints, etc. that it would be better to recommend a CS because there would be more flexibility for future development. Vice-Chair Lippert: Where I was going with is did you do an analysis or look at what the profile or your prototype here in CS versus what it might be in CN and being able to evaluate the two and weigh the two potential zones. Did you do anything like that? Ms. Capor~no: We didn’t do that because the emphasis was on economic development/retail we looked at the CS a~ having more development potential and given the areas also along El Camino as I had said before almost all of the properties along El Camino are CS with the exception of El Camino Way. The difference really in looking at the prototype that we address I think the only change would be a height limit. The 50-foot height is allowed under the CS and 40 feet would be allowed under the CN because normally it is 35 feet but the CN zoning district recognizes that along El Camino it could go higher up to 40 feet. The residential component of a mixed use under the CN is normally a little bit lower but along El Camino it is the .6 as it is in the CS. Vice-Chair Lippert: Right and in.terms of the ... Ms. Caporgno: As Curtis pointed out it is 15 units per acre as opposed to 30 for the residential too. Vice-Chair Lippert: Right that is sort of the direction where I am going. Where we have this component of the RM-15 parcel towards the back of the site well, why not if we look at the CN then we can apply the RM-15 to the entire site and therefore it wouldn’t be tied to the back portion of the site it would be a little more equitable and wouldn’t constrain the property owner maybe as much but it would allow for that density. That was a comment. What I am really trying to get is a handle on the direction that the City Council gave us, which is to look at residential sites that could potentially be commercial. At the time, ifI understand what the urgency was, was Prop 90. Prop 90 didn’t pass so we don’t have that urgency, correct? Ms. Caporgno: I think the urgency at the time was we trying to change the CS and CN zoning districts which we accomplished before the decision was made on Prop 90 but they recognized that it wouldn’t make any difference with this because obviously we are looking at this now and Prop 90 could be effect or as it isn’t in effect. The impetus for this was that they were concerned that this site and the other three would develop with standalone residential development prior to those sites being evaluated through the Comp Plan Update process. So they wanted to ensure that we retained the use for commercial on those sites because they were existing commercial properties as far as uses. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I recognize that we were only formally looking at the Palo Alto Bowl site and the Motel 6 site wasn’t sort of in play if you will, but did you guys do any formal or informal prototyping in light of comments from the representative of the seller about what could be built if those two properties were combined? Ms. Caporgno: We purposely didn’t because the Council direction was to look at the conversion of the site. When we first started this we didn’t know that they were going to be placed on the market but when we found out it seemed to be we knew that it was CS and looking at in combination with the other site would somehow we thought that the direction was just to look at that one parcel. So we just decided that it was inappropriate to look at the two of them in conjunction with each because then it may prejudice what would be done with the one site. Cutis you might want to add or Steve you might want to add. Mr. Williams: No, I think the answer is no we didn’t look at that option. That wasn’t the subject of our direction from Council. Chair Holman: Okay, I had just a few questions. One is a question to Staff just in response to the owner’s representative. He had suggested ifI understood him correctly, that CS would be a downzoning of the property. Would Staff respond to that? That is what I understood him to say. Ms. Caporgno: I don’t think our opinion is that it would be a downzoning of the property. I don’t know if the City Attorney wants to respond to that. As you have seen from the different development scenarios there is probably more development potential under the CS zone than just the residential zones. You get the full amount of residential under a mixed use plus you get the retail component. Chair Holman.: Thank you. Just a quick comparison here just so we have it all out here for all of us to consider. The CN versus the CS in terms of ground floor uses and retail including obviously along El Camino could you say what the differences are or if there are any? Mr. Williams: There really aren’t. Required ground floor is required to be retail along the frontage and both of them would require a minimum of.15 FAR for the site to be commercial/retail. The main difference again is in the uses. Hotel is not allowed and more regional type of uses are not allowed. Chair Holman: Again the differences are CN is 40-foot height essentially and CS is 50-foot height, is that correct? Mr. Williams: Right, and the FAR is the same. Chair Holman: FAR is the same. The number of units per acre CN versus CS. Mr. Williams: That is different, 15 units per acre for CN and 30 units per acre for CS. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Holman: Okay, I think that is good to have out there for comparison. Then it’may sound like an odd question or maybe not, sorry to put you on the spot here but how much open space would be required of the Palo Alto Bowl property if it were fully developed? Ms. Caporgno: Under CS or CN? Chair Holman: Either, well just CS. Ms. Caporgno: The coverage under the CS would be 30 percent and the coverage under the CN is 35 percent. Chair Holman: So what would that equate to just quickly, the CS 30 percent? Mr. Williams: About 25 to 30,000 square feet. Chair Holman: Okay. How does that compare to half an acre? Ms. Caporgno: It is just about a half an acre. Chair Holman: Okay. In rear setbacks CS versus CN? Mr. Williams: They both have to match the setbacks of the R-1 at the rear. Chair Holman: So there is no difference there then? Mr. Williams: Right. Daylight planes and setbacks match adjacent R-1. Chair Holman: Okay. As part of Site and Design Review if this were to come back to the Commission and ARB and Staff as part of a mixed use development an applicant might be prone to want to take advantage of the full development potential of the property and that would be understandable and expected. As part of the Site and Design Review of the Commission, ARB and Staff could you outline generally or as specific as you care to what kind of controls we have over that kind of review such that we could ensure buffer and transition to the R-1 behind? Mr. Williams: I think that is one of the areas you probably have the most control over is the transition to the residential areas. Then just generally making appropriate street frontage along El Camino would be a key, the internal circulation, how the uses mix together assuming it is a mixed use that would trigger the Site and Design, and then adjunct to all of that is the specific environmental review that would go on which at that point would analyze much more specifically the traffic effects and would outline mitigation measures which I have to believe would include probably signalization at Monroe and some efforts to calm traffic whether it is done through some of the techniques of site access or specifically through initiation of some City program for that. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 1 Chair Holman: One other question along those lines is as part of the project review, a project 2 review which would be yet to come of course, I am a firm believer that nobody knows a 3 neighborhood better than the people who live in it. It is kind of an obvious statement but 4 sometimes when we are reviewing projects on paper it looks like one thing but it lives a different 5 way. So as part of a future project review there were comments made about not having good circulation within the street, in other words a lot of U-turns being made, as part of a future project review is it potentially feasible or possible that there could be changes to those medians so that there could be better circulation provided? Could that be imposed on a project as part of a mitigation for traffic circulation? Mr. Williams: It could to the extent that it was very specifically tied to the impacts of this project. So we would have to have the nexus and the proportionality that it relates to what is happening from this project but yes, those kinds of mitigation measures as well as upgraded crossing, safety measures, etc. could be tied in as requirements. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Those are my questions. Are there comments? Vice- Chair Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you. Just following up on Chair Holman’s question regarding the development regulations. I was just going through this table here and according to the maximum height in the CS zone the standard height is 50 feet but the standard height in the CN zone is 25 feet and then also within the 100 feet of a abutting residential zone district the CS zone is limited to 35 feet, again the CN zone is 25 feet and two stories. Is that correct? So it is not 40 feet as Julie had previously stated. Ms. Caporgno: Within 150 feet of a residential site it would be limited to 35 feet but it is 40 feet if it is not within 150 feet of a residential site it could up to 40 feet. Mr. Williams: That is a footnote in that table it should be a footnote to the 35-foot in the mixed use table. You may be looking at the other, strictly nonresidential. If it were strictly nonresidential site then you are right the CN is 25 feet and two stories and CS is 50 feet. If you have the mixed use then the CN goes up to 35 feet generally and 40 feet on El Camino. Vice-Chair Lippert: Got it. Thank you. Chair Holman: Are there comments? It seems like we are ready for a motion. I think Commissioner Keller had indicated he might have a motion ready. Staff will indicate to us if we have answered all your questions or not. MOTION Commissioner Keller: Firstly, I would like the motion to state that we recommend that the City Council initiate a process of evaluation of traffic calming per the Safe Route to Schools for this community. That is the first step. The second step that I am proposing is to rezone the RM-30 portion of this property to CS. The third step is the Comp Plan Amendment for the RM-30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 portion to CS. The fourth step is to adopt the Negative Declaration with respect the RM-30 portion and just to be clear I am specifically keep the RM-15 portion as is. SECOND Commissioner Burt: I will second that. Chair Holman: Would you care to speak to your motion, Commissioner Keller? Commissioner Keller: Yes, thank you. I think that there are couple of things going on here. First of all the property owner has basically said that they are planning to sell these two properties in tandem, In terms of that having a CN zone on the Palo Alto Bowl and the CS zone on the other would make development of the properties in tandem be problematic. However, I am persuaded by the idea that it is important to think about the buffering between the adjacent property although the Motel 6 does not currently have such buffer nor does the CS property on the other side of Monroe that doesn’t have buffering either. I am persuaded by the idea that for this development we should think about some kind of buffer and having the RM-15 in the back makes sense. Furthermore I am also sympathetic with the idea mentioned by several of the Commissioners that this is an excellent site for some sort of hotel property which would have as mentioned by the engineer somewhat less of an impact than a big box retail or other kinds of retail and mixed use. So I think that is something that would be encouraged. One of the things we talked about in terms of hotel use is that up to a quarter of the 2.0 FAR could be condominium. What is interesting to me about that is that if you are basically thinking about a hotel for which condominium helps make part of the hotel that much more effective in terms of being able to afford the hotel that the transition of having some of the condominiums on the site on the CS portion, having some of the condominiums on the RM-15 portion seems like something that could be designed as a feasible project. So I think that this is a compromise that I think is something that has the potential for a good design, has a potential for enhancing revenue to the City, I appreciate Mr. Popp for recommending this as one of the things to consider. I also appreciate that it is important as part of this and realizing that there will be development to at least start the studies in terms of traffic calming, of what can be done such as I could imagine things such as blocking one or both of the streets that attach to the street further south where the carwash is, I forget the name, Domettio. There are two streets from the neighborhood that abut that and I could imagine providing some sort of blockage there or traffic calming there. I could imagine even taking Monroe and requiring people exit the neighborhood from the other side except from this commercial property. So there are possibilities of what can be done and I think that the City Council should be encouraged to start that process for this neighborhood so that something can be put into effect before development happens. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt, do you care to speak to your second? Commissioner Burt: Well, I concur with the comments of the maker of the motion. I would just like to express my appreciation for Commissioner Keller’s inclusion of the Safe Routes to 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 School component as a recommendation to Council. We realize that that’s not technically part of 2 the zoning recommendation. What became apparent as we looked at this area and everyone 3 came to appreciate the boundaries that this is the anomaly within the City of the school children 4 not being part of the Palo Alto School District. We have had this extensive Safe Routes to 5 School program where we have a City/School liaison committee that works very aggressively and has done some wonderful things but it has been safe routes between Palo Alto and Palo Alto School District and it has not included to date the Los Altos bound school children. I think this is a wonderful opportunity for us to include this neighborhood in looking at those impacts. So it gives an opportunity for something that is important and valued for this neighborhood. We may not get a hotel that would be at the allowable FAR because we do have 150 foot setback on the height limitation so that gives even a greater transitional cushioning even within the CS zone the height cannot go up to the allowable height for much of that property because it is not too much deeper than a 150 foot lot in the zone that we are changing to CS. So that gives me some greater comfort with zoning it CS because it is not likely to allow a structure that would have an abrupt transition to too great of a height. We have three different transitions we have these two odd parking easement parcels that will be one transition, the RM-15 another transition, and then the height limitation of the first 150 feet from the rear that is adjacent to the residential as another transition. So I think this is a pretty good compromise and has the ability to have the outcomes that are approximately like we would hope. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I would concur with the comments made by both the maker and the seconder. I did have a question more of Staff. With respect to the Safe Routes to School sort of exception to not looking at traffic calming generally is there anything in the discussions that Council has made or anything that you are aware of that would create an issue where we are not talking about PAUSD but we are talking about a different school district? I don’t want to walk away from here thinking that we have resolved this but then find that it is not PAUSD so it is not something we are willing to look at. Is there any sense on that? Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: There would be no issue of a Safe Route to School going to Los Altos schools. It is designated since Monroe Neighborhood is in Palo Alto we designate that as a Safe Route to School and it takes into account those school children going to a site outside of Palo Alto. So that is not going to be an issue. Let me just clarify what the Council’s current traffic calming program is. It is the recent budget cutbacks the Council reduced the availability of traffic calming to only site or only streets that are designated by the City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School. Prior to that it was extended to other streets and neighborhoods that were not necessarily Safe Route to School. That part was removed and has not been restored as a part of the budget. So the only streets that can apply and go through traffic calming are those that are on the City’s designated Safe Route to School network which this street is. Commissioner Tuma: Okay. The only other comment that I would make is that I do think we don’t have that many significant sized parcels in Palo Alto that have the opportunity for this type 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 of development that I think can meet the goals of what City Council is looking to do. At the 2 same time given some of the buffers and some of the things going on here I think you could wind 3 up with a fantastic project. I have actually spent a fair amount of time in that neighborhood over 4 the last couple of years for a number of different reasons, driven through there, and I certainly 5 appreciate what the neighborhood faces. I think with this type of a proj ect particularly combining it with Motel 6, creating a buffer, and dealing with the traffic calming I think we could come up with quite a good result that could be a win for everybody. Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I just want to say that I think that we really have struggled with this site. I think that the best thing that we did was the first time we looked at it we had some of the members of the community come out and talk about this, at their urging we took a second look at this, Staff took a second look at this, and we really I think have given this a great deal of consideration as to what we can do with this site, what are the options and struggled with it. I think that the CS zone definitely, the proposal here, is probably the best recommendation that we can make on this piece of property. What it does is has in place enough protections for the neighborhood and yet it doesn’t really encumber the property owner in terms of what they want to do. Through the process, the Palo Alto process, there are enough Boards and Commissions looking at this for the neighbors to be able to add their input. Because you were heard today you will be heard again when the sites are redeveloped. Chair Holman: I have just a couple of comments. One thing is we have to assume at some point that the properties that are currently being used for parking easements are going to be developed as R-1 so they are no longer going to be a buffer that they might provide for some period of time. The reason I was asking the questions about the open space and how it might compare to the RM-15 parcel is I was actually thinking about checking into a rear landscape buffer or just saying when a project would come back that that could be a landscape and that would provide for buffer at the back of a project. That open space is pretty much the same as the RM-15 parcel so that was one possibility for me. The RM-15 development since it has to match the R-1 height and setbacks I think the RM-15 might be a pretty good compromise and again it is a creative solution from a member of the public. I am trusting that surely when somebody comes forward and develops this parcel that they are going to develop that at the same time. So the access issues will be worked .out at that time. The wishes of the Council to retain retail I still as you all know and I am going to say it again just so it is out there, I still have some concern about the .15 retail especially on a parcel this size. If wishes were horses I would really like to be looking at this parcel or considering this parcel with some others for a neighborhood center. That is really what I would like to be doing. I don’t think we can undertake that at this point in time so that is why I haven’t brought it up or haven’t mentioned it previously but I think it is an opportunity that given everything else that is going on we are probably missing. I have some sadness about that for sure. 1 Given that I will be supporting the motion. I guess I would say to the neighbors thank you very 2 much for coming out. You have heard all of our comments about the flexibility that we have as 3 part of Site and Design Review when a project does come forward and how that does provide for 4 buffer, I guess I would ask you to make sure we live up to our word. With that I will ask for a 5 vote on the motion. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0. Commissioner Garber abstained due to conflict) Motion made by Commissioner Keller, seconded by Commissioner Burt all those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? None. So that motion passes unanimously on a six to zero vote with Commissioner Garber not participating. Thank you very much. We will take about a seven or eight minute break. If we could try to come to order again. I actually asked Julie Caporgno to stay for just a moment for this and I was thinking Steve would be here too. I had asked Julie to stay over for just a moment because there was an announcement made today and I thought you might like to make a public announcement of that here at this meeting. Mr. Emslie.: Thank you. I think you are alluding to the recent promotion of Julie Caporgno who was formerly our Planning Manager in charge of Advance Planning. Julie was recently selected through an internal recruitment as the Chief Planning and Transportation Officer for the City. So I would like to introduce Julie in her new capacity and join me in welcoming her. You will be seeing a lot more of her as she moves from her role as liaison to the HRB up to now the Planning and Transportation Commission. Chair Holman: Congratulations Julie. Thank you for staying behind to let us congratulate you. Our next item on the agenda is item number three, it is an Amendment to Title 18 amending Section 18.10.070(a) to prohibit second dwelling units including airspace rights thereto under different ownership from the initial dwelling unit in the RMD and R-2 zoning districts. The Environmental Assessment is this is exempt from CEQA. Would Staff care to make a presentation? Attachment F City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community En vironment California Environmental Quality Act NE GA TIVE DECLARATION I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date:November 15, 2006 Application Nos.: Address of Project: Applicant/Owner: 06PLN-00326 4329 El Camino Real City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project Description and Location: The City of Palo Alto is proposing to rezone and change the COmprehensive Plan designation for 4329 E1 Camino Real. The existing zoning for this site is RM-15 Low Density Residential and RM-30 Medium DensityResidential; the proposed zone district is CS Service Commercial. The existing Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this site is Multiple Family; the proposed designation is CS Service Commercial. There is no development project being proposed. The current use, Palo Alto Bowl, is commercial recreation and is an allowable use in the proposed CS zone district. The project site is located on the northerly side of a major arterial, El Camino Real (state Route 82), toward the easterly edge of the City limits bounded by Monroe Drive to the west and Cesano Court to the east. If.DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California - Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project located at 4329 El Camino Real could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: X The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. S:’tPLAN~LADIV~Current Planning\Clare~qD 4329 ECR Palo Alto Bowl.doc Although the project, as.proposed, .could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures for traffic impacts have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. Mitigation Measures None required. Date Director of Planing and Community Environment Date S:kPLAN~LADIV~Current Planning\Clare~dqD 4329 ECR Palo AIIo Bowl.doc ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment I.PROJECT DESCRIPTION ga Co PROJECT TITLE Palo Alto Bowl (4329 E1 Camino Real) Land Use Change and Rezoning LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Clare Campbell City of Palo Alto, Planning and Community Environment, Project Planner 650-617-3191 Eo PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 APPLICATION NUMBER 06PLN-00326 PROJECT LOCATION 4329 E1 Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 The project site is located on the northerly side of a major arterial, El Camino Real (State Route 82), toward the easterly edge of the City limits, in the northern part of Santa Clara 4329 El Camino Real Page1 Negative Declaration County, southeast of U.S. Highway 101, as shown on Figure 1, Regional Map. The project site is bounded by Monroe Drive to the west and Cesano Court to the east, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map. Figure 1: Regional Map Figure 2: Vicinity Map 4329 El Camino Real Page 2 Negative Declaration G.GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The parcel is designated as Multiple Family Residential in the Palo Alto 1998 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation permits low to medium density housing ranging from 8 to 40 dwelling units per acre dep~ending on the size of the lot. H.ZONING The project site has multiple zoning. This 2.17 acre parcel is zoned RM-30 Medium Density Residential for the front two thirds and RM-15 Low Density Residential for the rear third of the lot. The current use, commercial recreation, on this site is a legal non- conforming use; the rezoning process will allow this use to become a conforming use. I.PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a zone change from Multi-Family Residential (RM-30/RM-15) to Service Commercial (CS) and-Comprehensive Plan amendment from Multiple Family Residential to Service Commercial. Currently the use on this property exists as a non- eonforming legal use. This rezoning will not only make the current use an allowable use, but also will permit both retail and .mixed use for future development. J.SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The project site is a 400-foot deep lot with 267-feet of street frontage on E1 Camino Real. The site is surrounded by residential uses to the east (multi=family units) and north (single-family) and a motel to the west side. E1 Camin0 Real is zoned primarily for commercial uses (CS/CN) and the existing uses fall into that use category. K.OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES REFERRAL Native American Heritage Commission 4329 El Camino Real Page 3 Negative Declaration II.ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, but do not include impacts that are "Potentia, lly Significant" in nature, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air -Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. thd project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4)"(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 4329 El Camino Real Page 4 Negative Declaration 5) 6) 7) 8) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a)Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. " c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Additional consideration under City Thresholds Energy Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Appendix F (Energy Conservation), EIRs must include a discussion of the potential .energy impacts of proposed projects with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and tmnecessary consumption of energy. Impacts are assessed based on an evaluation of consumption of energy by the project. Development generally results in the consumption of energy in three forms: 1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles; 2) bound energy in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as milled lumber and glass; and 3) operational use of energy by future businesses for transportation, equipment operation, and cooling of buildings. Construction materials and the operational use of energy should be addressed. The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited areidentified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. 4329 El Camino Real Page 5 Negative Declaration A.AESTHETICS a) issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b)Substantially dam, age scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Sources 1,2 1,2 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact X x DISCUSSION: Redevelopment of this site under CS zoning could cha~nge the visual character of the site and create light or glare, but not to a significant level given the development standards of the CS zoning district. B.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture.and farmland. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) ConvertPrimeFarmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 4329 El Camino Real Page 6 Negative Declaration c) issues and Supporting Information Resources . Would the project: agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve ~ther changes in the existing environment w.hich, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? Sources 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact x DISCUSSION: The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmlandr’, or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. C.AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any .criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sources 1,2 1,2,6 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact x 4329 El Camino Real Page 7 Negative Declaration x Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Sources 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact x DISCUSSION: Redevelopment of the site for commercial uses could increase air quality.pollutants or create objectionable odors, but to a less than significant impact given the development standards of CS zoning districts. D.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on anY species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in l~cal or regional plans~ policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on. any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or ~ other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or Sources 1,2 Map ~-1) 1,2 Map 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Le~s Than No Significant Impact Impact X 4329 El Camino Real Page 8 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the. provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Sources 1,2 Map N-1 1,2,3 1,2 Map N-1 Potentially Significant Issues ¯Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact x CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, - including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Sources 1,2,7 MapL-7 1,7 MapL-8 1,2,7 MapL-8 i,2,7 MapL-8 Potentially Significant Issues P0tentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact x DISCUSSION: There are no known Native American remains interred in the vicinity of the project site, therefore redevelopment of the site under the CS zoning is not anticipated to disturb human burials. 4329 El Camino Real Page 9 Negative Declaration F.GEOLOGY AND SOILS Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse .effe~ts, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake. fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ¯ iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Sources See below 5 2-Map N-5 2Map N-5 2-Map N-5 2~ MapN- 5 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant. Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact NO Impact x X x x X X 4329 El Camino Real Page 10 Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: Redevelopment of this site under the CS zoning could expose people or structures to seismic ground shaking in event of an earthquake; however, all structures would be constructed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code which would reduce the exposure to a less than significant level. G.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the primary.issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials(substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed School? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or. the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people ¯ Sources 2, Map N-9 MapN- 9 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially , Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact x 4329 El Camino Real Page 11 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources g) h) Would the project: residing or working the project ¯area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuationplan? ’ Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources 1,2- MapN- 7 MapN- 7 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact x H.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a.lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a Sources 1,2 " 2~Map N-2 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues PotentiallY Significant Unless Mitigation .Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact 1,2 x 4329 El Camino Real Page 12 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flOWS? i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Sources 2,Map N-6 2,Map N-6 N-8 2,Map N-6 N- 8 Potentially Significant ¯ Issues ¯ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significan~~ Impact NO Impact X x X I.LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) b) Would the project: Physically divide an established community? Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but. not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural Sources 1,2 1,2,3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X c) 1,2 x 4329 El Camino Real Page 13 Negative Declaration No Impact Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: community conservation plan? Sources Potentially significant Issues Potentially Less Than Significant Significant¯Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated No Impact DISCUSSION: The rezoning will result in an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan land use from Multi Family Residential to Service Commercial. Since the site is located on the E1 Camino Real which has primarily commercial use, the new land use designation will be in conformity with the surrounding land use patterns J.MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) b) Would the project: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Sources 1,2 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X K. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project 1,2 1,2 1,2 Potentially , Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X 4329 El Camino Real Page 14 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Sources 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X DISCUSSION: Redevelopment of the site under the CS zoning district could result in additional noise levels in the vicinity of the project permanently or during construction, but not to a significant level given the development standards of the CS zoning standards. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Induce substantialpopulation ¯growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Sources !,2,3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact x 4329 El Camino Real Page 15 Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: Future development of the site with either commercial or mixed use development will not induce substantial population growth in the area or create any substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs; nor will it cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections. M.PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) Would the project: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order .to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact DISCUSSION: There are sufficient public services available to Serveredevelopment of the site trader CS zoning. 4329 El Carnino Read Page 16 Negative Declaration N.RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information l~esources Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Les~ Than No Significant Impact Impact O.TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individuall~ or cumulatively, a level of service. standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Sources 1,6 1,6 1,2 Potentially Significant Unless Potentially Significant Issues Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X x x 4329 El Camino Real Page 17 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: e)Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian; transit & bicycle facilities)? Sources 16 1~3 1,2,3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact x X DISCUSSION: Preliminary Traffic Impact Study has shown that there will be no significant increase in traffic. A trip generation study based on three types of future development scenarios (retail only, residential only and mixed use) showed that there will be little or no increase in AM/PM peak hour traffic as compared to existing traffic conditions on El Camino Real. Any future retail or residential or mixed use developments will only be permitted if adequate parking requirements are met. P.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, Sources 1,2 1,2 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless ~ Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X 4329 El Camino Real Page 18 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations relaied to solid waste? Sources 1 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact x X x DISCUSSION: There is sufficient utility and service facility capacity to sc~vc redevelopment of the site to CS zoning standards. Q.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: ¯ a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but Sources 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation " Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X 4329 El Camino Real Page 19 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources c) Would the project: cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Sources 1,2,6 Potentially Significant’ Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incdrporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X DISCUSSION: The northerly side of E1 Camino Real with the project site is a commercial strip fully developed with commercial uses including the project site. The results ofrezoning might bring in future developments either commercial or mixed use, but the extent of it will not be significant enough to cause any cumulative impact. SOURCE REFERENCES 1.Project Planner’s knowledge of the. site and site visits 2.Palo Alt0 Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 & Maps 3.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 - Zoning Ordinance 4.Uniform Building Code (UBC) 5.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 6.Transportation Impact Analysis 7.Cultural Resource Report, prepared by Bryan Much, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University 4329 El Camino Real Page 20 Negative Declaration III.DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent..A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact’.’ or "potentially significant .unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could .have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been a~’oided or mitigated pursuant .to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Project Planner Date Director of Planning and Community Environment Dale 4329 El Camino Real Page 21 Negative Declaration City of Polo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Env~onmental Quality ACt NE GA TI VE DECLARATION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date:November 15, 2006 Application No.:06PLN-00332 Address of Project:3981 El Camino Real Applicant/Owner:City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5t~ Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project Description and Location: The City of Palo Alto is proposing to rezone and amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for. 3981 El Camino Real. The site has multiple zonings, the RM-30 and RM-40 (Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential)portions of the existing site is proposed to be rezoned to CS (Service Commercial). The existing Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this site is Multiple Family; the proposed designation would be CS Service Commercial. There is no development project being proposed. The current use, Mayflower Motel, is commercial use and is an allowable use in the proposed CS zone district. The project site is-located on E1 Camino Real (State Route 82), in eastern Palo Alto. It’s in the northern part of Santa Clara County, southeast of U.S. Highway 101. 3981 El Camino Real site located south of Alma Street, bounded by East Meadow Drive in the east, and Ventura Avenue in the west II.DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental .Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project located at 3981 El Camino Real could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the Cily makes the following determination: X The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. H:\CEQA(Enviromnenlnl)~rD 3981 ECR Mar flower Molell Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment; there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures for traffic impacts have been added to the project and, therefore, a ~MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project° Mitigation Measures None required. Project Planner Date Director of Planing and Community Environment Date H:\CEQAt’Environmenlal)~’~D 3981 ECR Mayflower Motell.doc I.INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION A.PROJECT TITLE Eo Mayflower Motel (3981 El Camino Real) land use change and rezoning. LEAD.AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 CONTACT PERSON ANDPHONE NUMBER Chitra Moitra City of Palo Alto, Planning and Community Environment, Project Planner 650-329-2679 PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS Departmem of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 APPLICATION NUMBER 06PLN-00332 PROJECT LOCATION 3981 El Camino Real Palo Alto CA-94306 The project site is located on E1 Camino Real (State Route 82), in eastern Palo Alto. It’s in the northern part of Santa Clara County, southeast of U.S. Highway 101, as shown on the site location map. 3981 El Camino Real site located south of Alma Street, bounded by East Meadow Drive in the east, and Ventura Avenue in the west. 3981 El Camino Real Page 1 Negative Declaration Go GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The parcels are designated as Multiple Family Residential in the Palo Alto 1998 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation permits low to medium density housing ranging from 8 to 40 dwelling units per acre depending on the size of the lot. ZONING 3981 E1 Camino Real site has multiple zoning. This 1.47 acre parcel is zoned CS (Service Commercial) in the front facing El Camino Real (.28 acres), RM-40 (High Density Multiple Family Residential); about .31 acres immediately behind the CS zone and RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple Family Residential) for the rest of the lot (.88 acres). The current use on this site exists as a legal non-conforming use on the RM-30 3981 El Camino Real Page 2 Negative Declaration and RM-40 portion of the site; the rezoning process will allow it to become a permitted use. I.PROJECT DESCRIPTION Zone change from existing Residential (RM-30/RM-40) portions of the property to Service Commercial (CS) and Comprehensive Plan amendment from Multiple Family Residential to Service Commercial. Currently the use on this property exists as a non-conforming legal use. This rezoning will not only make the current use a permitted use, but also will permit both retail and mixed use for future development. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING This parcel is a narrow elongated parcel with little street frontage on El Camino Real. The Mayflower Motel is one of the three motels located on this commercial strip on El Camino Real. Adjacent to the motels are some auto .repair and retail use. There are commercial uses across the street, a shopping plaza, gas station and multi family housing. Behind this parcel are Ventura Community, Center and few single family homes and apartments. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES REFERRAL Native American Heritage Commission III.ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, but do not include impacts that are "Potentially Significant" in nature, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Hyd rology/Water Qu ality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise ,Population/Housing Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service S)’stems Mandatory Findings of Significance 3981 El Camino Real Page 3 Negative Declaration Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Recreation EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .1) 2) 3) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" .answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational .impacts. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) 5) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, o~ other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mftigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the Statement is substantiated. 7)Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 3981 El Camino Real Page 4 Negative Declaration 8)The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Additional consideration under City Thresholds Energy Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Appendix F (Energy Conservation), EIRs must include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. Impacts are assessed based on an evaluation of consumption of energy by the project. Development generally results in the consumption of energy in three forms: 1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles; 2) bound energy in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as milled lumber and glass; and 3) operational use of energy by future businesses for transportation, equipment operation, and cooling ofbuildings. Construction materials and the operational use of energy should be addressed. The following Environmental Checkli st was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklistlists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. 3981 El Camino Real Page 5 Negative Declaration Ao AESTHETICS a) Issues and Supporting Information. Reso u rces Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including,, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,..and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual Character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect dayor nighttime views in the area? Sources .1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X DISCUSSION: Redevelopment of this site under CS zoning could change the visual character of the site and create light or glare, but not to a significant ,level given the development standards of the CS zoning district. B.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. a) ISsues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X 3981 El Camino Real Page 6 Negative Declaration b) c) Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? So.rces 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact DISCUSSION: No Impact The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. C.AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria estabiished by the applicable air. quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. a) b) c) Issues.and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for Sources 1,2 1,2,3 1,2,6 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation - Incorporated Less Than .No Significant Impact Impact x 3981 El Camino Real Page 7 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources .. Would the project: ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e)Create Objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Sources 1,2 Potentially significant Issues Potentially . significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X DISCUSSION: Redevelopment of the site for commercial uses could increase air quality pollutants or create objectionable odors, but to a less than significant impact given the development standards of CS zoning districts. D.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department offish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Waier Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, Sources Map (~-~) 1,2 Map (N-l) Potentially Significant Issues ~ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 3981 E Camino Real Page 8 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ~ d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native Wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy Or ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, Or state habitat conservation plan? Sources 1,2 Map N-1 1,2,3 1,2 Map N-1 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation. Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact x E.CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Reso u rces a) Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site orunique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Sources 1,2 MapL-7 1 MapL-8 1,2 MapL-8 1,2 MapL-8 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Srignificant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact NO Impact x 3981 El Camino Real Page 9 Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: There are no known Native American remains interred in the vicinity of the project site~ therefore redevelopment of the site under the CS zoning is not anticipated to disturb ~human burials. Fo GEOLOGY AND SOILS Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or oroperty? Sources See below Map N-10 2-Map N-5 2Map N-5 8-Map N-5 MapN- 5 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation . Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact Impact x .X X 3981 El Camino Real Page 10 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources ~ e) Would the project: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or. alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not ¯ available for the disposal of waste water? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact DISCUSSION: No Impact X Redevelopment of this site under the CS zoning could expose people or structures to seismic ground shaking in event of an earthquake; however, all structures would be constructed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code which would reduce the exposure to a less than significant level. G.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAI,S Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health And Safety if the primary, issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use. Issues and SupportingInformation Resources Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the publicor the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous " materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous Sougces 2 Map N: 9 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact " Impact x x 3981 El Camino Real Page 11 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard t6 the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources 2 MapN- 9 ,2- MapN: 7 Potentially Significant Potentially Significant 2 MapN- 7 Issues Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant~ Impact No Impact x x Ho HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) h) Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater Sources 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3981 El Camino Real Page 12 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wellswould drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been g.ranted)? .Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial.additional sources of polluted runoff?. f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place.housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ¯ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structureswhich would impede, or redirect flood flows? i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? SouFce$ 1,2 1,2 2,Map N-6 2,Map N-6 N-8 2,Map N-6N- 8 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated No Impact x X 3981 El Camino Real Page 13 Negative Declaration I.LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting InfOrmation Resources Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but.not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Sources 1,2.3 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant ’ Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No ¯ Impact x DISCUSSION: The rezoning will result in an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan land use from Multi Family Residential to Service Commercial. Since the site is located on the El Camino Real which has primarily commercial use, the new land use designation will be in conformity with the surrounding land use patterns. J.MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) b) Would the project: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Sources 1,2 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact Impact x 3981 El Camino Real Page 14 Negative Declaration K. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources. Sources Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan 1,2 or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration 1,2 or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project 1,2 vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 1,2 existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan. has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or 1 " working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in 1 the project area to excessive noise ’ levels? Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant impact Impact x DISCUSSION: Redevelopment of the site under the CS zoning district could result in additional noise levels in the vicinity of the project permanently or during construction, but not to a significant level given the development standards of the CS zoning standards. 3981 El Camino Real Page 15 Negative Declaration L.POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Sources 1,2,3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless~ Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X x DISCUSSION: Future development of the site with either commercial or mixed use development will not induce substantial population growth in the area or create any substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs; nor will it cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections. M.PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) Would the project: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for Sources Potentially Significant lssues Potentially Significant Unless MitigatiOn Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 3981 El Camino Real Page 16 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Sources ¯Poteniially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact DISCUSSION: There are sufficient public services available to serve redevelopment of the site under CS zoning. No RECREATION issues and Supporting Information ¯ Resources Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Poientially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant r Impact No Impact x x 3981 El Camino Real Page 17 Negative Declaration O.TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) . Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g, farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access? t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) ConfliCt with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? Sources 1,6 1,6 1,2 1,2.3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact x X x DISCUSSION: Preliminary Traffic Impact Study has shown that there will be no significant increase in traffic. A trip generation study based on three types of future development scenarios (retail only, residential only and mixed use) showed that there will be little or no increase in AM!PM peak hour traffic as compared to existing traffic conditions on El Camino Real. Any future retail or residential or mixed use developments will only be permitted if adequate parking requirements are met. 3981 El Camino Real Page 18 Negative Declaration P.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a). Exceed wastewater treatment .requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the.construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant. environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater.treatment provider which serves Or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to. solid waste? Sources 1,2 1,2 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X X No Impact X DISCUSSION: There is sufficient¯ utility and service facility capacity to serve redevelopment of the site to CS zoning standards. 3981 El Camino Real Page 19 Negative Declaration M.ANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) b) c) *Would the project: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but. cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects .of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Sources 1,2 1,2,6 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant ¯ Unless ¯ Mitigation Incorporated Less Than .No Significant Impact Impact x DISCUSSION: The side of El Camino Real with the project site is a commercial strip fully developed with ¯ commercial uses including the project site. The results ofrezoning might bring in future developments either commercial or mixed use, but the extent of it will not be significant enough to cause any cumulative impact. 3981 El Camino Real Page 20 Negative Declaration SOURCE REFERENCES 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and site visits Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 & Maps Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 - Zoning Ordinance Uniform Building Code (UBC) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Transportation Impact Analysis 3981 El Camino Real Page 21 Negative Declaration IV.,DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the enqironment~ there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a Significant effect on ihe environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find .that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact"-or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets~ An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain tO be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect 0n the environment,, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards~ and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Project Planner Date Director of Planning and Community Environment Date 3981 El Camino Real Page 22 Negative Declaration City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act NEGATIVE DECLARATION I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date:November 15, 2006 Application Nos.: Address of Project: Applicant/Owner: 06PLN-00327 and 06PLN-00329 City of Palo Alto Department of Plarming & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5~h Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project Description and Location: The City of Palo Alto is proposing to rezone and amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for 725 San Antonio Avenue and 4151 Middlefield Road. The existing zone for these sites is RM-15 (Low Density Residential) proposed to be rezoned to CS (Service Commercial). The existing Comprehensive Plan land use designation for these sites is Multiple Family; the proposed. designation would be CS Service Commercial. There is no development p.rojecl being proposed. The current use on these sites are commercial nursery and office building, both the uses are an allowable use in the proposed CS zone district. The project sites are located near the border of Mountain View and Palo Alto, Northeast comer of Middlefield Road, in the City of Palo Alto. It’s in the northern part of Santa Clara County, southeast 0fU.S. Highway 101 and northeast of State Route 82 (El Camino Real). Both 725 San Antonio parcel and 4151 Middlefield Road is bounded by San Antonio Road in the east and Middtefield Road in the south. 11.DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project located at 725 San Antonio Avenue and 4151 Middlefield Road could have a significant effect off the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: X The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant .effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures for traffic-impacts have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE .DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. Mitigation Measures None required. Project Planner Date Director of Planing and Community Environment Date H’\CEQA(Environm¢nlal)\ND 725 SA Av ~nd 4151 ~ Rd.doc I.INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT TITLE Summerwinds Nursery (725 San Antonio Avenue) and 4F51 Middlefield Road Office site land use change-and rezoning. B.LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS CQ Do Eo City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Chitra Moitra City of Palo Alto, Planning and Community Environment, Project Planner 650-329-2679 PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 APPLICATION NUMBER(S) 06PLN-00327 and 06PLN-00329 PROJECT LOCATION 725 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 (APN 127-15-051) AND 4151 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94306 (APN 127-15-023) The project sites are located near the border of Mountain View and Palo Alto, Northeast comer of Middlefield Road, in the City of Palo Alto. It’s in the northern part of Santa Clara County, southeast of U.S. Highway 101 and northeast of State Route 82 (El Camino Real), as shown on site location map. Both 725 San Antonio parcel and 4151 Middlefield Road is bounded by San Antonio Road in the east and Middlefield Road in the south. 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 1 Negative Declaration GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The parcels are designated as Multiple Family Residential in the Palo Alto 1998 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation permits low to medium density housing ranging from 8 to 40 dwelling units per acre depending on the size of the lot. ZONING Both 725 San Antonio site and 4151 Middlefield Road site are zoned RM-15, (Low .Density Multiple. Family Residential District). This z0ning district is designed to accommodate single family, tworfamily, and multiple family housing as permitted use. The current uses of these two sites as commercial and office, makes it a legal non- conforming use; the rezoning process will make it a permitted use. 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 2 Negative Declaration I.PROJECT DESCRIPTION Zone change from existing Residential (RM-15) to Service Commercial (CS) and Comprehensive Plan amendment from Multiple Family Residential to Service Commercial for two properties located on. 725 San Antonio Road, and 4151 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING Both the parce.ls are bounded by multiple family housing in the north (Green House Complex) and some single family housing in the west. 725 San Antonio site has access through both San Antonio Avenue and Middlefield Road, while 4151 Middlefield Road is accessible through Middlefield Road. The east side of 725 San Antonio Avenue site borders San Antonio Avenue, a busy commercial corridor, with gas stations, auto dealership and some retail uses all around it. The commercial uses across the street boarders the Palo Alto city limit with Mountain View. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES Native American Heritage Commission IIIo ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The .environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, but do not include impacts that are "Potentially Significant" in nature, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Hyd rology/Water Quality Transportation/Traffic Agriculture Resources Air Qualily Biological Resources Cultural Resources. Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Utilities/Service S:ystems Mandatory Findings of ~Significance 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 3 Negative Declaration EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the ¯ impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained Where it is based on project~specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants~ based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level~ indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3)’Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4)"(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a tess than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier ElK or negative.declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this ease, a brief discussion should identify the following: a)Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,’r describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated.or refined from the earlier document and the extent.to which they address site-specific Conditions for the project. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7)Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and 725 San Antonio Av & 415"1 Middlefield Rd Page 4 Negative Declaration b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Additionalconsideration under City Thresholds Energy Pursuantto CEQA Guidelines Appendix F (Energy Conservation), EIRs must include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. Impacts are assessed based on an evaluation of consumption of energy by the project. Development generally results in the consumption of energy in three forms: 1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles; 2) bound energy in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as milled lumber and glass; and 3) operational use of energy by future businesses for transportation, equipment operation, and cooling of buildings. Construction materials and the operational use of energy should be addressed. The following Enviionmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited areidentified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts .are included. 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Midd lefield Rd Page 5 Negative Declaration A.AESTHETICS a) Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Have a substantial adverseeffec! on a scenic vista?. b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ’ d)Create a.new source of substantial light or glare which would-adversely affect.daY or nighttime views in the area? Sources 1,2 1,2 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant. Impact No Impact X DISCUSSION: Redevelopment of these sites under CS zoning could change the visual character of the site and create light or glare, but not to a significant level given the development standards of the CS zoning district. Be AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an. optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. a) Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Convert Prime.Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide .Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 6 Negative Declaration b) c) Issues and Supporting Information Resources " Would the project: California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Wiiliamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? Sollrces Potentially ¯ Significant Issues Potentially Significant. Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact DISCUSSION: X The sites are not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The sites are not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. C.AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by th~ applicable air quality management or air pqllution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.. a) b) c) Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation Result in a cumulatively. considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for Sources 1,2 1,2 1,2,6 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless .Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact x x 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 7 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Sources 1,2 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less.Than No Significant Impact¯Impact x DISCUSSION: Redevelopment of the sites for commercial uses could increase air quality pollutants or create objectionable odors, but to a less than significant impact given the development standards of CS zoning districts. D.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,¯ either directly or through habitat modifications~ on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, Sources 1,2 Map (N-l) 1,2 Map t -I) 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact x x X 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 8 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) .Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Sources 1;2 Map N-1 1,2~3 1,2 Map N-I Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless , Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact x x E.CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Sources MapL-7 1 MapL-8 MapL-8 Potentially Significant Unless MapL-8 Potentially Significant Issues Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact x 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 9 Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: There are no known Native American remains interred in the vicinity of the project sites, therefore redevelopment of the sites under the CS zoning is not anticipated to disturb human burials. ~ F.GEOLOGY AND SOILS Issues and Supporting Information Resources " a). Would the projeci: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. it) Strong.seismic ground shaking? iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Sources See below " 5 Map N=10 2-Map N-5 2Map N-5 2-Map N-5 MapN- 5 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact x No Impact X x X x 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 10 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting- Information Resources e) Would the project: Have soils incapable of adequatelY supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation. Incorporated Less Than No ¯ Significant Impact Impact x DISCUSSION: Redevelopment of these sites under the CS zoning could expose people or structures to seismic ground shaking in event of an earthquake; however, all structures, would be constructed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code which would reduce the exposure to a less than significant level. G.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health And Safety if the primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous Sources 2, Map N-9 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless MitigationIncorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact ’ 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 11 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a ¯ significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) . For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk,of loss, injury, or death involving wi!dland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources MapN- 9 MapN- 7 MapN- 7 Potentially Significant .Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant. Impact NO Impact X x H.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) b) Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 12 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources c) ’ Would the project: table leve!(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation ¯on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage ~patternof the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or riv.er, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site~ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacitY Of existing or. planned stormwater drainage systems or ~ provide substantial additional-sources of polluted runoff?. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ’~ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100:year flood hazard area structures which would, impede or redirect flood flows? i)ExposePeople or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Sources 1,2 1,2 2,Map N-6 2,Map N-6 N-8 2,Map N-6 N- 8 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated No Impact X x x X X x x 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 13 Negative Declaration LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) b) c) Would the project: Physically divide an established community? ¯ Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Sources 1,2 1,2,3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant ¯ Unless Mitigation Incorpoi’hted Less Than Significant ImPact X DISCUSSION: No Impact The rezoning will result in an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan land use from Multi Family Residential to Service Commercial. Since the sites are located on intersection of San Antonio Avenue and Middlefield Road, which have primarily commercial uses around them, the new land use designation will be in conformity with the surrounding land use patterns. J.MINERAL RESOURCES .Issues and Supporting Information Resources a) b) Would the project: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in theloss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Sources 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact x 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 14 Negative Declaration K. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of Persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration Or ground borne noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing wi~thout the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residingor working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Sources 1,2. 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless . Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant.Impact Impact DISCUSSION: Redevelopment of the sites under the CS zoning district could result in additional noise levels in the vicinity of the project permanently or during construction, but ~not to a significant level given the development standards of the CS zoning standards. 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 15 Negative Declaration L.POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project:. a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? )Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Sources 1,2,3 Potentially .Significant lssues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact DISCUSSION: Future development of the sites with either commercial or mixed use development will not induce substantial population growth in the area or create any substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs; nor will it cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections. M.PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) . Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or Sources 1 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 16 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: other performance objectives .for any of the public services: ¯Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant . Impact Impact X DISCUSSION: There are sufficient zoning. public servicesavailable to serve redevelopment of thesites under CS N.RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use- of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significa’nt Impact Impact x 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 17 Negative Decla ration O.TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,-a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,.sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? Sources 1,6 1,6 1,2 1,2,3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact ’ x x x X No Impact DISCUSSION: Preliminary Traffic Impact Study has shown that there will be no significant increase in traffic. A trip generation study based on three types of future development scenarios (retail only, residential only and mixed use) showed that there will be little or no increase in AM/PM peak hour traffic as compared to existing traffic conditions on San Antonio Avenue. Any future retail or residential or mixed use developments will only be permitted if adequate parking requirements are met. 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 18 Negative Declaration P.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater ~reatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities~ the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or exPansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected ~ demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Sources 1,2 1,2 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact X No Impact x X DISCUSSION: There is sufficient utility and service facility capacity to serve redevelopment of the site to CS zoning standards. 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 19 Negative Declaration MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: a)’ Does the project have the potential b) c) to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate aplant or animal community, reduce the numberor restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history ~or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively Considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when Viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Sources 1,2 1,2,6 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless ¯ Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact x X x DISCUSSION: Both sides of San Antonio Avenue and the intersection of San Antonio and Middlefield area is a commercial strip fully developed with commercial uses including the project sites. The results of rezoning might bring in future developments either commercial or mixed use, but the extent of it will not be significant enough to cause any cumulative impact. 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 20 Negative Declaration SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and site visits 2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 & Maps 3. Palo Alto Municipal Code,. Title 18 -Zoning Ordinance 4. Uniform Building Code (UBC) 5. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 6. Transportation Impact Analysis 725 San Antonio Av & 41 51 Middlefield Rd Page 21 Negative Declaration IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that-the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect-on the environment~, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ’ ¯ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one .effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on aitached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. X Project Planner Date Director of Planning and Community Environment Date 725 San Antonio Av & 4151 Middlefield Rd Page 22 Negative Declaration Attachment H Korve Engineerin 1570 The Alameda, Suite 222 San Jose, California 95126 408-298 -2929 Fax 408-298-2970 OAKLAND ¯LOS ANGELES ¯ SAN JOSE o SAN DIEGO ¯SALT LAKE CITY MEMORANDUM To: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: JULIE CAPORGNO CLARE CAMPBELL ROLAND RIVERA C HITRA MOITRA DENNIS STRUECKER OCTOBER 24, 2006 TRIP GENERATION FOR THREE RETAIL SITES Introduction The City of Palo Alto is considering the redevelopment of three sites as possible retail or mixed use projects. The first step in the assessment is a trip generation comparison between various land use scenarios. Three trip generation values are calculated. The three scenarios are existing use, a 100% retail option and a mixed use option with both retail and residential This memo documents the trip generation for each site. Trip generation has been calculated using average rates. The attached table, documents the trip generation calculations. The retail trip generation has been reduced by 25 percent in the AM peak and 50 percent in the PM Peak to account for pass:by traffic already on the street network and not specifically generated by the new development, The three sites are as follows: .3945 and3981 El Camino Real ,, 4315 -4329 El Camino Real ¯4t51 Middlefield/725.San Antonio 3945 and 3981 El Camino Real The existing use for these parcels is a 70-room motel on one site and a37-room motel on the other. 107 motel rooms generate 48 AM peak hour trips and 50 PM peak hour trips. The City has determined that this site could accommodate 44,087 square feet of retail development. Redeveloping this site as retail would result in 34 AM peak hour trips and 83 PM peak hour trips. A mixed use project could consist of 44,087 square feet of retail space and 76 condominium/townhome units. A mixed use project would generate 67 AM peak hour trips and 122 PM peak hour-trips. The maximum net new traffic for this site as retail only would be -14 AM trips and +32 PM trips. The maximum net new traffic as mixed use development would be +19 AM trips and +72 PM trips. The increase in traffic over- existing use is not great enough to warrant a traffic analysis to change the zoning. At the time of project development and approval, the need for a site-specific traffic impact analysis should be re-evaluated. 4315-4329 El Camino Real The existing use for this parcel is a 30,459 square foot bowling alley. The bowling alley generates 95 AM peak-, hour trips and 108 PM peak hour trips. The City has determined that this site could accommodate 37,855 square feet of retail development. Redeveloping this site as retail would result in 29 AM peak hour trips and 71 PM peak hour trips. A mixed use project could consist of 37 855 square feet of retail space and 65 condominium/townhome units. A mixed use project would generate 58 AM peak hour trips and 105 PM peak hour trips. The maximum net new traffic for this site as retail only would be -66 AM trips and -37 PM trips. The maximum ne[ new traffic asmixed use development would be -37 AM trips and -3 PM trips. During the both peak hours the amount of traffic Is expected to decrease from existing use. A traffic analysis to change the zoning is not warranted. Because traffic may ncrease in one direction (i.e., inbound during the PM peak for the mixed use project), at the time-of project development and approval a traffic analys~s may be required. 4151 IVliddlefield/725 San Antonio The existing use for this parcel is a 3,648 square foot nursery and 24,000 square foot of office space. These land uses generate 46 AM peak hour trips and 55 PM peak hour tri ps. The City has determined that this site could accommodate 47,267 square feet of retail development. Redeveloping this site as retail would result in 37 AM peak hour trips and 89 PM peak hour trips. A mixed use project could consist of 47,267 square feet of retail space and 81 condominium/t.ownhome units. A mixed use project Would generate 72 AM peak hour trips and 131 PM peak hour trips. The maximum net new traffic for this site as retail only would be -9 AM trips and +34 PM trips. The maximum net new traffic as mixed use development would be +26 AM trips and +76 PM trips. The increase in traffic over existing use is not great enough to warrant a traffic analysis to change the zoning. AI the time of project development and approval, the need for a site-specific traffic impact analysis should be re-evaluated. Conclusions Trip generation estimates have been calculated for three sites throughout Palo Alto to understand the potential increase in traffic if the existing use ~s changed to either retail or mixed use. The difference between the existing use and the proposed land use has been calculated using the trip generation totals. For each site and for each alternative, the trip generation for the proposed land use is less than 80 vehicle trips during both peak hours. In some instances the comparison results less overall traffic. Because of the minor amount of. additional traffic, a detailed traffic analysis for rezoning is not necessary. At the time a specific project is proposed for each site, the need for a site- specific traffic analysis-..should be re-evaluated by City staff. Trip Generation Rates Land Use ITE Category Indep. Variable Condominium 230 (Avg Rate)1 dwell, units Motel 320 (Avg Rate)1 Room Office 710 (Avg Rate)1 1,000 sq [1 Bowling Alley 437(Rate)1 1,000 sq ft Nursery Wholesale 818" (Avg Rale)1 1,000 sq ft Shopping Cenler 820 (Avg Rate)1 1,000 sq fl Direction split Is assumed 50/50 Daily Rate 5.86 5.63 !1.01 33.33 39.00 42.94 In 0.07 0.17 1 1.88 1.20 0.63 AM Out 0.37 0.28 0.19 1.25 1.20 0.40 Rate 0.44 0.45 1.55 3.13 2.40 1.03 In 0.35 0.25 0.25 1.24 2.59 1.80 PM Out 0.17 0.22 1.24 2.30 2.59 . 1.95 Trip Generation Results based on Rates Parcel: 3981 EL Camlno (1.28 Acres) Land Use Option 1: Existing Use Molel 107 Rooms Option 2: 100% Commercial Retail Pass-By 25% in AM and 50% in PM Total 44.087 1,000 sq ft Increase Over Existing Option 3: Mixed Use Condos 76 DU Retail 44,087 1,000 sq ff Pass-By 25% in AM and 50% in PM Total Increase Over Existing Daily 602 1,893 -947 947 344 1,893 -947 1,392 789 In AM Out Total 3O 48 28 18 45 -7 -4 -11 21 13 34 3 -17 -14 8 28 33 28 18 45 -7 -4 -11 25 41 67 9 tl 19 In 79 -40 4O 13 26 -40 68 39 PM Out 2:3 ’ 86 -43 43. 20 13 86 -43 56.’ 33 Parcel: 43154329 EL Camino (2,07 Acres) Land Use Option 1: Existing Use Bowling Alley 30.459 1,000 sq ff Option 2: 100% Commercial Retail Pass-By 25% in AM and 50% in PM Total 37.855 1,000 sq ft Increase Over Existing Option 3: Mixed Use Sondos 65 DU Retail 37.855 "1.000 sq ft ~ass-By~ 25% in AM and 50% in PM Tolal Increase Over Existing Daily 1,015 1,625 -813 813 -202 57 24 -6 18 -39 5 24 AM Out 38 15 11 -27 Total In 95 38 39 68 -10 -34 29 34 -66 -4 29 23 39 68 -10 -34 58 57 -37 19 381 1,625 -813 1,194 178 -6 23 -35 24 15 -4 35 -3 PM Out 7O 74 -37 37 -33 11. 74 -37 48 -22 Parcel: 4151 Mlddlefield, 725 San Antonio_ (2.71 Acres) Land Use Option 1: Existing Use Nursery 3.648 1,000 sq ft Office 24.000 1,000 sq fl Tolal Option 2: 100% Commercial Retail Pass-By 25% in AM and 50% in PM Total 47.267 1,000 sq ft Increase Over Existing OPtion 3: Mixed Use Condos Retail Pass-By 25% in AM and 50% in PM Total 81 DU 47.267 1,000 sq ft Increase Over Existing Dally- 142 264 407 2,030 -1,015 1,015 6O8 475 2,030 -1,015 1,489’ 1,083 4 33 37 30 -7 22 -15 6 3O -7 28 -9 AM Out 4 4 9 19 -5 14 5 30 19 -5 44 35 Total 9 37 46 49 37 36 49 -12 72 26 In Out Rate 0.52 0.47 1.49 3.54 5.17 3.75 85 -43 43 27 Total 50 165 -83 83 32 40 165 -83 122 72 Total 108 142 -71 71 -37 34 142 -71 105 ~3 9 9 19 6 30 36 16 39 55 92 ¯ -46 46 ¯ 7 t4 92 -46 6O 21 28 85 ’ -43 71 55 177 -89 89 34 42 177 -89 131 76 New Trip Generation Study December 13th 2006 PALO ALTO BOWL: The trip generation table shows total trip generation for each site and also shows adjusted trip generation. The adjustment is done for both stand-alone retail and for the retail component of mixed use. The adjustment is for pass- by and/or diverted trips. For small retail projects up to 50% of the trips are not trips generated specifically to that site. Instead they are trips that are already passing the site or are diverted from a block or two away to drop off the laundry, pick up a video, buy a quart of milk, etc. Since they are not really new trips they are not treated the same as a trip to the bowling alley. Seldom would it occur that someone is driving down the street, sees a bowling alley and decides to stop in and bowl a few games. Therefore, there is no adjustment for bowling alley trip generation. The AM trip generation for the bowling alley is 95 trips and zhe PM generation is 108 trips. The ADJUSTED trip generation for 100% retail is 29 AM and 71 PM trips, both lower than the bowling alley. The ADJUSTED trip generation for the mixed use project is 58 AM and 105 PM trips, again both lower than the bowling alley. I hope this clears up any confusion. If you need anything else, let me know. I am not sure of my office hours until after the New Year.