Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-14 City Council (2)City of Palo Alt6: City Manager’s Report’-" TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:JUNE 14, 2004 CMR:323:04 SUBJECT:UPDATE TO PREVIOUS CMR 388:03---PRELIMINARY REVIEW FOR 901 SAN ANTONIO ROAD RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the City Council review and comment on the proposed project concept for 12 acres located at 901 San Antonio Road, and in addition, recommends a Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement of 15% on the Bridge Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD) property and 20% on the Campus for Jewish Life (CJL) property, rather than imposing the 20% requirement across the entire 12-acre site. No formal action may be taken at a preliminary review, as comments made at a preliminary review study session are not binding on the City or the applicant. DISCUSSION Since August 4, 2003, staffhas made the following modifications to CMR 388:03. These changes should be noted when reviewing the CMR and considering the overall project concept: Development of each parcel would involve a separate application for rezoning to a Planned Community District, including Comprehensive Plan amendment (from Light Industrial to Mixed Use) and other related discretionary permit(s). As currently proposed, BUILD’s senior rental complex (up to 65 units) is entirely affordable. This proposal would satisfy more than 50% of the City’s unmet need for very low affordable housing and provide BMR units well beyond the number required. One and two-bedroom flats, ranging from 600 to 800 square feet (s.f.), are proposed. BUILD proposes 165 for-sale units. The total size of all residential units (approximately 225) would be 280,000 s.f. One to three-bedroom flats and two to three-bedroom townhouses are proposed. CJL’s senior living facility would be approximately 270,000 s.f. and include 165 units averaging 1,200 s.f. in size. The community center is proposed at 115,000 s.f. The floor CMR:388:03 Page 1 of 5 area ratio (FAR) for the CJL parcel is proposed at 1.18, and the BUILD parcel is proposed at 1.61. The FAR for the entire 12-acre site is proposed at 1.32. A conceptual massing model for buildings at four stories over a podium garage on the BUILD property has been provided in the applicant’s presentation materials. However, pursuit of a building height(s) taller than the permitted limit (i.e., 50 feet) for the CJL property has been indicated. In order to justify the increase(s), a Design Enhancement Exception and/or Variance to the maximum height standard, depending upon the extent of the additional height proposed (e.g., ranging from two to ten feet) would need to accompany an application for rezoning to a Planned Community District for this parcel. A Design Enhancement Exception would be requested for a minor change (i.e., within a few feet) to the required height regulation. A Variance request would be made for any height beyond a few feet above the 50-foot height limit. The applicants are attempting to meet the 50-foot height requirement but have been finding it difficult, due to floodplain requirements and the unevenness of the site. Specifically, they have been mentioning the likelihood of applying for a Design Enhancement Exception for a few additional feet. However, as the design of buildings becomes more specific, the applicants may choose to seek a Variance. Therefore, the applicants and staff are interested in the City Council members’ preliminary thoughts on granting a variance to the allowable height maximum for some of the buildings on this site. RESOURCE IMPACT At this level of preliminary discussion and non-specific project description, there is not sufficient information to determine a detailed cost!benefit analysis. However, the following is a preliminary analysis of the transaction between Sun Microsystems and CJL. Additional research is necessary to provide more accurate estimates, as well as initial estimates for such revenue sources as utility user taxes that have not yet been identified. Staff will develop a detailed cost/benefit analysis, once formal development applications have been made for City Council review. The departure of Sun Microsystems results in the loss of significant sales tax revenue. Although receipts fluctuated widely from year to year, the average tax loss from Sun sales is somewhat over $210,000. In 2001-02, Sun paid approximately $70,000 in property taxes. In addition, Sun Microsystems generated utility user, transient occupancy, and sales taxes from employee spending. To date, staff has not calculated or estimated these contributions. CJL’s purchase of the 12-acre site generated a one-time documentary transfer tax of $106,000. The documentary transfer tax is estimated at $35,000 for sale of 4-acre parcel to BUILD. Property taxes, before development of both parcels, are estimated at around $30,000 annually. Based on estimated sales prices of the proposed 160 market-rate units by BUILD, the City would eventually realize one-time transfer taxes of more than $240,000 and annual property taxes of more than $71,000. Estimated value of the proposed senior housing CMR:388:03 Page 2 of 5 units is not available. Staff has no estimates on improvements to the CJL property, particularly since a fundraising effort is underway to fund the project. It is important to note that benefits from these developments will not accrue for several years. Staff has not yet estimated the secondary benefits of use of this site by new residents and activity on the CJL property. Additional sales, utility user, and other revenues will be generated. Likewise, there will be additional City costs to serve this new population, as well as other proposed site amenities. Staff will develop a comprehensive estimate of these benefits and costs, once formal development applications have been made for City Council review. A preliminary view of the costs and benefits of the transaction is provided in the tables below: Estimated Losses and Gains Annual Revenue Loss (Sun Microsystems Departure) Sales Tax Property Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Utility Users Tax Total TBD = To Be Determined $210,000 $70,000+ TBD TBD $280,000+ Expected Immediate Revenue Gain (CJL and BUILD) Annual Property Taxes [$30,000 Expected Immediate Revenue Gain (CJL and BUILD) One-Time Documentary Transfer Tax $141,000 Planning and Other Fees TBD Total $141,000+ TBD = To Be Determined Expected Future Revenue Gains (CJL and BUILD) Annual Property Taxes from CJL TBD Property Taxes from BUILD $71,000 CMR:388:03 Page 3 of 5 Utility Users Tax TBD Sales Tax TBD Total $71,000+ TBD = To Be Determined Expected Future Revenue Gains (CJL and BUILD). One-Time Documentary Transfer Tax !$240,000+ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Final Risk Management Plan for the BUILD parcel was prepared and approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board on April 1, 2004. This document and others have been prepared in preparation of the project’s environmental review, which will be conducted upon formal application submittal for development. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), covering all significant project impacts to both parcels, will be required at that time. In order to expedite processes involved with the selection and hiring of an environmental consultant who would prepare the EIR, staff has issued a Request for Proposal. By the date of this hearing, a consultant will be selected. Two additional policies (i.e., Housing Element Pro~ams H-1 and H-3) have been added to the Key Considerations/Policy Implications Matrix. PREPARED BY: Chris Magnusson Planner and / t ,-.--’---"- Tricia Schimpp Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Steve Emsli~e -" ~ Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR.a88.0a Page 4 of 5 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Emily Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: CMR 388:03, dated August 4, 2003, with Attachments Attachment B: Applicant’s Power Point Presentation (Council Members Only) COURTESY COPIES Margaret Sloan, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP Rob Steinberg, The Steinberg Group Randy Popp, The Steinberg Group James Baer, Premier Properties Patrick McGaraghan, Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidenrich Shelley Hebert, Campus for Jewish Life Karen Stem, Campus for Jewish Life Terezia Nemeth, BUILD Lydia Tan, BUILD Joseph McCarthy, BUILD Jacob H.V. Foraker, Space Systems Loral Karen Groseclose, Space Systems Loral Barbara Platt, Green Meadow Community (HOA) Peggy Peischl, Geomatrix Consultants Jeremie Maehr, Geomatrix Consultants Lester Feldman, Geomatrix Consultants Bob Whitehair, Allana-Lippert Betsy All.vn, Resident Jean Wilcox, Resident Cathy Swan, Resident CMR:388:03 Page 5 of 5 Attachment A City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY M_ANAGER DATE:AUGUST 4, 2003 CMR:388.03 SUBJECT: PREL~ARY REVIEW FOR 901 SAN" ANTONIO ROAD REPORT IN BRIEF The applicant, Randy Popp of The Steinberg Group, has requested a preliminary, screening of a redevelopment project concept for the 12-acre former Sun Microsystems site located at 901 San Antonio Road. The developers, Bridge Urban Infill Land Development (BUILD); a for-profit subsidiary, of Bridge Housing Corporation, and Campus for Jewish Life (CJL), a non-profit organization, have proposed a mixed use development with affordable/attainable housing units, a communiW center, and senior housing. The implementation of the project would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use classification from Light Industrial to Mixed Use. The proposed redevelopment includes an amendment to the Zoning Map from General Manufacturing (GM) to Plapmed Communi~ (PC). Staff has conducted a preikrninary analysis of the suitability of the site to accommodate the uses proposed by the applicant, as wel! as the consistency of the proposa! with the nnlic~ nfthe (2nrnnr~h~n~ve Plnn ~Sppe.~Mlv tho.~ r~lntincr tn inh~/hnn~in~r Th~ r,-nnrt addresses five key considerations relating to the redevelopment of the site. This report also lists those policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the new Housing Element that are all=o-ned with the key considerations and may provide g~aidance for the redevelopment of the project site. A summary matrix of key considerations/policy implications is provided as Attachment A. The key considerations are as follows: 1)Change of land use from office/light industrial to residential and community., services. 2)Be!ow Market Rate (BMR) housing unit requirement. 3)Development impacts (housing, transportation, community facilities, schools). 4)Physical constraints and oppommities (environmental, height, F,a~. sustainable/g-teen building design, open/recreation space, adjacent properties, removal of existing 5) PC process/phasing. CMSRJ88.0~Page 1 of 13 RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the City, Council review and comment on the proposed project concept for 12 acres located at 901 San Antonio Road and to provide direction to staff on a policy framework for the BMR requirements for the site. No formal action may be taken at a preliminary, review; comments made at a preliminary., review study session are not binding on the City. or the applicant. BACKGROUND An associated Tentative Map application to subdivide the property into two parcels was approved by Council on March 3, 2003. The CMR and the Record of Land Use Action are provided as Attachment B. While the Tentative Map was approved, the City retains planning jurisdiction over the site as a whole. This Preliminary Review application has not been reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission or any other City boards or commissions. As provided for by Chapter 18.97 of the Zoning Ordinance, the purposes of a Preliminary Review are: a) To maximize opportunities for meaningful public discussion of development projects, at the earliest feasible time, for the guidance of the public, project proponents, and city decision makers. b) To focus public and environmental review of development projects on the issues of greatest significance to the community, including, but not limited to, planning concerns, neighborhood compatibility, Comprehensive Plan consistency, economics, social costs and benefits, fiscal costs and benefits, technological factors, and legal issues. These procedures are not intended to permit or foreclose debate on the merits of approval or disapproval of any Nven development project. c) To provide members of the public with the opportunity to obtain early information about development projects in which they may have an interest. d) To provide project proponents with the opportunity to obtain early, non-binding preliminary, comments on deve!opment projects to encourage sound and efficient private decisions about how to proceed. e) To encourage early communication between elected and appointed public officials and staff with respect to the implementation of city policies, standards, and regulations on particular development projects. f) To facilitate orderly and consistent implementation of the city’s Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. Site Information The 12-acre project site has roadway frontage on San Antonio Road, East Charleston Road, and Fabian Way (see Attachment C). The site contains a five-stoDr, 265,000 square-foot building and a surface parking lot (on the east end of the site) that was formerly used by Sun Microsystems. The site is currently unoccupied and vacant. CMR:388:03 Page 2 of 13 The project site has regional vehicle access from the Highway 101 and San Antonio Road interchange that is less than one-quarter mile to the east, and is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as an employment district and commercial gowth monitoring area, the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor. San Antonio Road is an amerial roadway providing access to the City of Mountain View to the immediate south and west. Many local and regional commercial services are located within walking distance along the Corridor, and the San Antonio Center, a regional shopping complex, is located on San Antonio Road, less than one and a half miles from the site. The San Antonio Caltrain Station is located at the intersection of San Antonio Road and Central Expressway, approximately 1.3 miles from the site. The site is well served by major VTA bus routes along the San Antonio Road corridor and along t~ast Charleston Road, a residential arterial roadway providing local access throughout Palo Alto. Bikeways exist along San Antonio Road, East Charleston Road, and Fabian Way, which connects a seasonal underpass at Highway 101 to the Baylands and open space areas on the east side of the freeway. The San Antonio Road Corridor is characterized by ser~dce commercial and light industrial land uses. Space Systems Loral occupies facilities on adjacent properties to the east and north of the project site along Fabian Way. Loral also has operations on the south side of San Antonio Road, Additional service commercial uses operate along East Charleston Road near the site. Residential neighborhoods are located nearby (within two blocks) to the north and west of the project site along East Charleston Road. Attachment D indicates cultural resources and community services, such as parks and schools, within a one and two-mile radius of the project site. These include: Mitchell Park Library. and Community Center and outdoor recreation space, Cubberlev Center, Bowden School, Jane Stanford School, Fairmeadow School, Don Jesus Ramos Park, the Baylands Nature Preselwe, and Shoreline Park in the City of Mountain View. The project site is a level parcel with some mature trees providing a landscaped screen along San Antonio Road and Fabian Way. The large surface parking lot is landscaped with a mixture of trees and other vegetation. Environmental issues that are discussed later in this report under Environmental Review include: traffic, flood zone, noise, seismic and geotechnical, soil and goundwater contamination, and impacts to neighboring properties from demolition and construction activities on the site. Proiect History Sun Microsystems sold the site to CJL in 2002. CJL has ageed to sell a portion of the site to BUILD. The Tentative Map splits the overall site into a 4-acre parcel for BUILD and an 8-acre parcel for CJL (see Attachment E). The site will be developed as two separate projects. The Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B) allows the City to CM]R:388:03 ~" require coordination and development of access, parking, open space, utilities, and similar amenities on both parcels. The City also retains the authority to require adjustment of the lot line between the newly created parcels as appropriate for furore redevelopment of either parcel. The developers have ageed to demolish the existing building prior to developing any portion of the overali site. The following conceptual development plan for redevelopment of the site is proposed by the two organizations: BUILD proposes to construct approximately 230 affordable/attainable housing units (of approximately 290,000 s.f.) on its parcel. The housing mix includes approximately 80 affordable senior rental units and 150 for-sale condominiums and townhouses. The senior rental units wouldbe composed of one and two bedroom flats (650 to 850 s.f.). The for-sale units would include one, two, and three bedroom flats (960 to 1,400 s.f.), two and three bedroom lofts (1,250 to 1,400 s.f.), and two and three bedroom townhouses (1,250 to 1,550 s.f.). These units would be for sale with prices at the lower range of the market (see Attachment F). CJL proposes to construct on its parcel a 165-unit senior housing facility. (approximately 240,000 s.f.) with assisted living services (consisting of units less than 1,200 s.f.). A 150,000 square foot recreation/community center is also proposed that would include, among other various amenities, a pre-school, day care center,-fitness center, classrooms, multi-purpose space, recreational space, and swinuning pool (see Attachment F). DISCUSSION Attachment A provides the policies and progams listed in the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element that are pertinent to each of the key considerations. As incentive to build affordable housing and to provide community, services, Council may consider where fiexibility of certain zoning standards and development policies (as stated in the adopted Housing Element) may be appropriate for this application. Chan_~e of Land Use The change in land use from office/light industrial to residential and community service benefits the City, by (a) improving the City’s housing balance, (b) generating less traffic a.t nearby high volume interchanges at peak hours, and (c) providing community, services such as day care, senior care, open space and recreation. In adopting the Housing Element in 2002, the City Council confirmed the appropriateness of building housing on this site. The City.. Council has also, in prior actions for approving an alternative relocation proposal for the Jewish Community Center, stressed the importance of retaining such community’-serving resources in Palo Alto. Some of the economic consequences of converting a commercial site into a non-profit use and reducing the square footage available for office use in the Cit~, are discussed in the section on Economic Impacts below. .....°o’n~-Page 4 of 13 The Housing Element targets a j0bs/housing imbalance and supports the reduction of non- residential job-generating land and conversion to residential use. The Housing Element specifically recommends the conversion of the Sun Microsystems site to a residential/community facility mixed-use development as a primary factor benefiting the jobs/housing equation. The proposed 230 housing units plus the assisted living senior housing exceed the objective of the City’s Housing Sites Inventory that identifies a minimum of 6.5 acres of the 12-acre site for 200 units. Below Market Rate (BMR) Housin~ Units The City’s BMR requirement, for affordable housing at below market rates for very low, low, and moderate-income households, is at least fifteen percent of all housing units in projects of five units or more. Projects on sites of five acres or larger must set aside 20 percent of all units as BMR units, The existing project site is approximately 12 acres in size. The developers have obtained approval of a parce! split that results in a .four-acre site for the BUILD housing project. However, the Council must decide on a BMR policy framework for the overall site. Should this PC proposal be viewed as a single development, subject to the 20% role, or as a pair of coordinated but separate developments, only one of which is subject to the 20% rule? The parcel split was necessary for financing purposes, but the conditions of approval provide that the City retains the authority to require adjustment of the lot line between the newly created parcels as appropriate for future redevelopment of either parcel. The developers are proposing two separate projects that will not be developed simultaneously. However, the developers need to coordinate the overall site development as a coordinated and consolidated mixed-use development in order to gain flexibility of certain development standards (relating to hei~_A~t, density, shared parking and open!recreation space) to build the proposed projects. As a 12-acre mixed use development with housing, the City, may require 20% of the units as BMR units. Alternatively, the Council may believe it better to reduce the requirement to 15% for the smaller portion of the project in consideration of the significant public benefit that the entire project has to offer the City (i.e., affordable housing, attainable housing, senior housing and care, childcare, and recreational facilities). As currently proposed, BUILD’s senior rental complex (up to 82 units) is entirely affordable. This represents appro~mately 35% of the 230 residential units BUILD proposes on its parcel. Development Impacts and Impact Fees As the projects become defined, there will be more information upon which to analyze specific impacts to public services, such as utilities, parks and open space, libraries, transportation, and schools. If the project proceeds as proposed in this report, the following will apply: C~MR:388:03 Page 5 of 13 The applicant has provided a preliminary traffic analysis based on ITE standards to compare the net trip generation for the existing and proposed uses: TOTAL USES Existing Use Proposed Uses Net Reduction TRIP S 457 281 -176 PM PEAK TRIPS 4~a 372 -61 Increased demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and perhaps transit, may result from the project. Public Services The developers would pay impact fees to offset capital costs to meet the increased demand for community facilities (i.e., parks, community centers, and libraries) and schools. The new demands generated by this project would be offset by some reduction in demand because of removal of office space. However, community facilities demands from residents are sig-nificantly higher than those from office workers. The PAUSD fee is $2.14 per square foot for new residential floor area and $0.34 per square foot for new commercial floor area; these rates are not collected by the City and are subject to change. If BUILD constructed 290,000 square feet of residential floor area, it would pay approximately $620,600. If CJL constructed a 150,000 square foot community, center and 240,000 square feet of residential floor area, it would pay approximately $564,600. These amounts may be subject to adjustment for removal of existing commercial square footage. An estimate of City. development impact fees is provided in the table below. These figures are based on the proposal of a 150,000 square foot community center and 395 potential housing units, 110 of which may be small units less than 900 square feet. This estimate is based on Ci~, fees that would be in effect as of August 15, 2003. Actual fees due will be based on fees effective at the time discretionary, approval for the project is final and all details of square footage and units have been provided. The table does not include a reduction for removal of the existing 265,000 square foot commercial building. CMR:388:03 Page 6 of 13 (Before Any IImpact Fee Type Parks Community Centers Libraries .Housing iTraffic (SanAntonio/ West Bayshore) CITY TOTALS 285 Housing Units (geater than 900 s.f.) $1,505,655 110 Housing Units (less than 900 s.f.) $293,810 Estimated City Impact Fees Credit for Removal of Existing Improvements) Proposed Community Center (CJL) !50,000 s.f. $514,500 $392,445 $76,340 $28,500 $135,945 $26,290 $27,000 N/A N/A $2,286,000 N/A N/A $262,500 $2,034,045 $396,440 $3,118,500 Physical Constraints and Opportunities Physical constraints and opportunities regarding the proposed use of the site include: Environmental Known environmental constraints include location in a flood plain, soils contamination from prior use, noise from nearby Highway 101 and San Antonio Road, and impacts on neighboring properties of deconstruction of the existing building and new construction. Following the submittal of a formal application for development, additional information will be gained as the California Envirortrnental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations and ~oa.~idelines are enforced. More discussion of CEQA is provided under the Environmental Review section of this report. Height The existing building on the site has a height of approximately 96 feet. Current zoning standards do not permit a building height geater than 50 feet in either the existing (GM) or the proposed (PC) zoning districts. The site is located in a flood plain that is not suitable for undergound parking. In order to build the density, necessary to make the project economically feasible, BUILD proposes to construct under-buildinffpodium parking and buildings with articulated roofs, some exceeding 50 feet in height. Because the site is large, next to a freeway, near industrial uses, and currently occupied by a very tall building (approximately 96 feet in height), it may be possible to use buildings higher than 50 feet to advantage, without adverse affects on the site or the neighborhood. The applicant’s presentation materials show two conceptual design possibilities for the site that illustrate the advantages of buildings taller than the permitted height limit (up to 65 feet in one scenario and 85 feet in the other): more usable and functional open space and better views and noise buffers from adjacent land uses (see Attachment F). CM-R:388:03 Page 7 of 13 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The current zoning of the site is Genera! Manufacturing (GM) that permits a maximum FAR of 1.0 to 1 for residential or mixed residential and nonresidential uses, provided that non-residential uses not exceed 0.5 to 1. The existing development has a FAR of approximately 0.5 to 1. The proposed development would have an overall site FAR of approximately 1.28, with a FAR of 0.55 to 1 for the BUILD project, a FAR of 0.28 to 1 for the CJL Community Center, and a FAR of 0.45 to 1 for the CJL Senior Housing. The Comprehensive Plan Mixed-Use desigaaation allows a FAR of up to 2.0 in areas such as this along transit corridors, with FAR above 1.15 allowable for residential uses. This proposal has a substantially higlaer proportion of housing and has a much lower FAR than 2.0 or the 3.0 suggested for "areas resistant to revitalization". Staff would not characterize this site as resistant to revitalization and believes that, Nven the large housing component, the lower FAR still advances the land use and transportation goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Sustainable/Green Building Desi~ The applicant proposes to deconstruct, rather than renovate and remodel, the existing building on the site. This structure was not built to current codes and standards and is not particularly ener~ efficient or suitable for conversion to housing. Construction of new buildings that incorporate sustainable/geen building standards would result in energy savings overall. The demolition of the existing building is a requirement of the parcel split and must be completed prior to any development on any portion of the combined site. In addition, sensitive site planning, building desi~ma, and choice of construction methods and materials would be reviewed by the City.. for adherence to sustainable/geen building practices that result in optimum energy efficiency and quality of life. Open and Recreation Space/Site Amenities In order to provide a quality of life for the proposed residential uses, the overall PC site plan should incorporate adequate open space on the site for both the resident and non- resident users of the site. The proposal suggests a membership-based recreational/community facility, on the CJL portion of the site. The City normally requires both private and shared open spaces for multiple-family housing. The extent to which the CJL recreational facilities can fulfill this need will depend upon availability and cost, if any, of membership as well as the size of the facilities and the number of non-resident members/participants anticipated. Site amenities should include mature trees and landscaped areas that offer some privacy for residents and buffers to adjacent uses and public congegation areas; play areas for children other than those dedicated to childcare progams; pedestrian and bicycle facilities and pathways that connect to off-site bikeways and bus services; and other outdoor recreational areas that are sensitive to the combined uses of the site. Given the high noise levels generated by the freeway, placement of buildings and open spaces will be crucial to obtaining acceptably quiet open spaces. CMR:388:03 Page 8 of 13 Adjacent Properties Space Systems/Loral occupies the adjacent properties to the east and north of the subject site. The proposed development must be sensitive to the operations of Loral and take substantive precautions not to disrupt their business operations during deconstruction and construction phases on either parcel. Loral is particularly sensitive to dust and vibrations. Due to the adjacent light industrial usage and close proximity to Highway 101 and San Antonio Road, the development of the project site should provide adequate buffers .and building desi~wn measures to mitigate noise generated off-site, in order to protect the quality of residential life. In the longer term, the site needs to be designed so that residences are insulated from disturbance caused by late-night trucking and other operations, which, while typical in an industrial district, can be disruptive for residents. Removal of Existing Building The existing building will be deconstructed prior to development on any portion of the 12-acre site. The demolition of the existing 265,000 square-foot commercial building does not qualify for a statutory or categorical exemption from CEQA.The CEQA process must be complete prior to deconstruction. PC Process/Phasina For the proposed project, the developers must share the site to meet requirements for parking and open space. The PC zoning district offers the best flexibility for the proposed development. BUILD and CJL propose making a single application for a zone change to PC, with a master site plan that covers the combined 12+-acre site. However, BUILD proposes to begin construction of the housing project on the east 4-acre parcel before CJL develops the 8-acre parcel. T,vpically, a PC is ~anted for a single mixed-use project. However, BUILD and CJL propose to proceed as two separate projects under the same PC site plan. The site would be phased for construction over some number of years. It is unknown at this time just how many years will be necessarv for completion of both projects. CJL would also need a development ageement to assure that its project could proceed in the future. The PC District process involves both zoning and design review. Staff proposes that the PC District include detailed design (including landscaping, parking, and any other proposed interim uses) for the permanent development of the BUILD site and the interim development of the CJL site. When CJL is ready to proceed with its permanent campus, the design review would be approved by Council and the CJL site PC enacted as a separate PC ordinance. Development ageements, easements, and other documents would provide permanent duties and obligations for inter-related aspects of the two sites. The Housing Element policies support the conversion of sites that are suitable for future housing from planned or zoned non-residential use to residential or mixed use development, particularly along major transportation corridors with bus service; and target the rezoning of properties on the Housing Sites Inventory, by 2004. The subject site is located along a major transportation corridor and is listed on the Housing Sites CMR:388:03 Page 9 of 13 Inventory. While the site’s current zoning district allows residential, day care, and other uses proposed by the developers, the GM district development standards such as height and FAR would prohibit the density/intensity proposed. The Housing Element proposes the change in zoning development standards to support the type of development proposed by the developers. The PC zoning district allows for flexibility of development standards in exchange for a public benefit. The applicants propose to provide childcare and senior care facilities that are at a deficit in the San Antonio Corridor section of the city. The proposed affordable housing would be a substantial benefit in meeting the Housing Element goals. The entire project provides significant public benefits. RESOURCE IMPACT The proposed project concept provides substantial economic benefits: reducing the affordable housing shortage in the City, reducing the jobs/housing imbalance, and providing privately funded and operated community services and facilities. The change in land use would also reduce space for office jobs. The CJL (a non-profit organization) portion of the site would be removed from the real property, tax rolls. However, the BUILD site would be reassessed at current values. The required City, impact fees for the combined development would offset some capital costs for City, public services, and the PAUSD impact fees would offset economic impacts to public schools. Processing of the development application is on a cost/recovery basis, and no additional funds are necessary for staffing. At this level of preliminary discussion and non-specific project description, there is not sufficient information to determine a detailed cost/benefit analysis. POLICY IMPLICATIONS While the proposed development is not consistent with some development standards, such as height and density, there are numerous City, policies that support the type of development proposed by the applicant. The most significant policy implications are indicated below under their respective headings. BMR Requirement Council will decide which standard, 15% or 20%, to apply to the BUILD portion of the project. PC Zone Standard Fle:dbilirv/Public Benefits The project requires building height and density standards that are geater than the zoning district regulations. Council can be flexible with the standards in exchange for public benefits that will justify the provision. The applicants have requested consideration of building heights above the 50-foot maximum height limit currently al!owed in a PC district. C~MR:388:03 Page 10 of 13 Jobs/Housin~ Balance The proposed housing progams under the Housing Element encourage increasing housing density along San Antonio Road and the conversion of non-residential lands to residential. The subject site is listed on the City Housing Sites InventoD" for rezoning and conversion to housing by 2004. -New development standards are also recommended in the Housing Element that allow for increased flexibility, for parking, height, and FAR to encourage a desired mix of housing units. Zoning incentives are recommended as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update to encourage the development of diverse housing types, such as smaller, more affordable units and two and three bedroom units suitable for families with children. The project site is ideally situated in an employment district with local and regional multi- modal transportation access to provide housing and community services to meet both local and regional needs. The Comprehensive Plan supports higher multiple-family residential densities than permitted by zoning where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be compatible with the overall Comprehensive Plan. The proposed mixed uses are located within an identified employment/transit corridor and would provide childcare and senior care facilities, as well as affordable!attainable housing that support the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The project site provides an opportunity for the City to require a mix of BlVIR units and other housing related services for children to seniors to facilitate the objectives of the Housing Element. Communit~ Services Map C-3 of the Comprehensive Plan shows a lack of childcare facilities in the project neighborhood. The applicant proposes to provide child and senior care services as well as communi~ center facilities that would support the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. ENVIRO1N2~IENTAL REVIEW No environmental review is required for a Prelimina~ Review application. However, staff has identified potentially significant environmental impacts relating to noise, biology, soi! and goundwater contamination (resulting from historic operations by the Ford Aerospace Company), flooding, seismic and geotechnical issues, and deconstruction!construction impacts (vibration, dust, noise, etc.) to neighboring sites, such as Loral. The redevelopment of the site should consider both the impacts of the new development on adjacent property, uses and the impacts of adjacent property. uses on the new development. Construction activity impacts can be mitigated by sensitive construction management measures and scheduling. The on-going noise impacts from nearby Highway 101 can be mitigated through design and appropriate building technologies. The applicant has prepared a preliminary, traffic analysis and a health and safety risk management plan for the site based on the proposed project concept. Additional technical reports may be required for the completion of the environmental CMR:388:03 Page 11 of 13 assessment. When a project application is filed, staff will develop the Initial Study in compliance with CEQA guidelines. The applicant has also submitted draft versions of risk management plans (RMP) for the BUILD parcel and the CJL parcel. Each plan was prepared to assess potential human health risks and identify protocols and measures, if needed, to protect future site users (i.e., those who will work, attend classes, recreate, visit, and/or reside on the site) from exposure to residual chemicals of concern that exist within the soil and goundwater. The protocols posed in these RMPs are for implementation during desi_ma, construction, and post-construction site activities. At present, site cleanup requirements (Order 99-043) have been issued by the California Re#onal Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Re,on. The Order was issued to Ford Aerospace Corporation, Space Systems/Loral, Sun Microsystems, and Far Western. The Ford Aerospace Corporation was named as a discharger because it was the entity responsible for chemical releases to soil and goundwater within the bounds of the property it ori~nally owned. Currently, both RM~s are being reviewed by the City Planning Department. Given that a project application has vet to be filed, no CEQA review has occurred to incorporate any of the specified protocols and/or measures or to determine the level of City participation in implementing permitting requirements. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Key Considerations?Policy Implications Matrix Tentative Map CMR and Record of Land Use Action (Council Members Only) Vicinity Map Site Proximity to Community. Facilities Map (Council Members Only) Land Use Map Applicant’s Power Point Presentation (Council Members Only) COURTESY COPIES Margaret Sloan, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP Rob Steinberg, The Steinberg Group Randy Popp, The Steinberg Group James Baer, Premier Properties Shelley Hebert, Campus for Jewish Life Terezia Nemeth, BUILD Lydia Tan, BUILD Joseph McCarthy, BUILD Karen Groseclose, Space Systems Loral Stephen Shoji, Space Systems Loral Barbara Platt, Green Meadow Community (HOA) Pegg~y Peischl, Geomatrix Consultants Jeremie Maehr, Geomatrix Consultants CMR:388:03 Page 12 of 13 Lester Feldman, Geomatrix Consultants PREPARED BY: Chris Magn s@/ Planner and Tricia Schimpp Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Sfeve Emsl~ Director of Planning and Community. Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Emily Assistant City Manager ....Pa~.e 13 of 13CMR..~ 88.0.~- ¯¯¯¯O’ ¯¯¯ Ci L"~r Oj Attachment B Department Communi~ = .............. M~,9! 2003 Gene Golobic Kier & Wri~t Civil Engineers & Surveyors, inc. 2350 Scott Boulevard: Building 22 Santa Clara, CA 95054 P!a_mnin~ Die.don SL~JECT: 901 San _Matonio Road; 02-PM-02: Tentative Map Approval Dear ~k. Oolobic: On Monday. " ~ " .-,,..~v~ap,. _v, arcn " 2003. the Ciw,~ounci: conditionally approved the Tentative application 02-PM-02, pursuan~ to the Palo Ako _’.vlmaicipal Code (P.~.MC) Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section ~6,+ .. -.. The attached Record of Land Use Approval No. 2003-1 contains the approval conditions appIicable to this application. A Parce! Mare in cor~ormance with ,h~ annroved , enmnve Mare all reouirements oz Subdivision Orci~,ance (P_~MMC 21.16), and ~o zhe satisfaction of ~he C~rv Enm_n .... shatl be filed wirk the Planning Diwision and the Public Works En=m~nee~--ing Division w-ithin m,o ?,ears ot 0ae Tentative Map approval date. Please refer to the ~arce: MapApprovaz and _~ erm qidpprovat secri6ns within the attached document Should you have any questions regarding this Ci<,7 Council action, please con,act me at (650) 329-2189. Sincerely, i /Ctxis lvr~nusson Planner Margare~ Sloam A~torney James Baer. ~ = " ~- = "=~ Ns Gal. C~us for Jev,~h L~ Joseph McCOy, BD~D Karen Groseciose. Space Sysmm~ Lorat Steohe= Shoji, Space Sys~e~ Loral Barbara Plar~ Green " *" ’ ~’~vxeaaoxx. ~o~<,, (HOA" 250 ?£arrd]ton Av~_nue R©. Box 10250 P~o .alto, C_1 9-.303 4~0.329.244’!i 650.329.2154 fax APPROVAL NO. 2003-1 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 901 SAN ANTONIO ROAD: TENTAT~.rE MAP 02-P~-02 (KIER & WRIGHT C~V~L ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, !NC., APPLICANT ON BEIqALF OF CAM.PUS FOR ~FEWiSH L~FE) At its on March 3, 2003, the City Council o= the City of Paio A!:o approved the Hap to s’~iodivide the 12 ~.:6~-acre proper:y with an building twoseparate parcels,m=m ....the following findings, dete_~TAnanion and ~e~_~.~_~O:.S: ~.~:_ON !. Background. The Co~.cil of the City of ~a~ o ~ to ("Cir.,, Co~.~-.--,cil" ) finds ~=~- : ~ - A. On Au~ast 2, 2002, Kier & Wright Civil & !nc., on behalf of the Ca:mpus for Jewish Life ("CJL"), .....DroDer~_v o}_a~.ers, am~.!i=d_ ___~ a Tentative __maD_ to subdivide a _72 .162-~,~ marcel w::h an existing "--story bui!dimg into two parcels. Parcel One would be 4 acres, on which the existing building will remain, and Par~=~ ~’wo would be 8.162 acres ("The Project"). a:_c a ~.~--:o.~ of the oarkinc lot wo~d remain on m=~-=~ One, ~ti! s~ time as the ~ .... ~ @-m.~__=_~ and zhe s~ ~= { -:urcher ~ .....--~p~ov ....The balance of zhe _markinc_ area would remain on -:’a~c=~_ _. Two, ~’~{~____. ~ such zime as the unoccupied bui!din~ on m=--c=~ One is demolished and :he --~=~ ~- re-deveiooed ~= subdivision of ~ ~-_¯ ....~,= parce! does confo~, to :he zo__~si:e @eve!oom~nt re~:iaZions, aside from the ~ssue of floor .......~ Parcel 0~= -<~-~ ~- ""=_:= _=~,o or. ....~-~ ,= a@cressed by a recorded a~==m=~ ~==-~’~_ -:u~-%e~ .....dev=:o<.m=~e-- _- ~.__ on Zhe two marcels while ~= existing bui!dinT stands,m~= =~== =~-___...._ ....~_~_m~_~also assures ~intenamce of <=ma~v re~aired oarkin~ andu~y-~’ =- =~.~.~__ :o~,_owmn~st=:z the ~7 a~{ ~m and Transportation Cormmission.~-=~-:~=_we~ ~he p~.j oct a~___ recommended approval on January !5, 2003, s~Sect to conditions of approval d==~=d to insure that the City retains review .Dowers for the of the site as a "~noie as if the maD_ had not "me=~. approved, including the power to set below-market-rate housing . e~u._ ~m=:~ ~_ The and Transoorza:Aon Co~mission ~=~omm=~S~e ~ ~ ~ are contained ~ - " 5he M~nager ’ s Report, C[~,: !~2 : 03, ~nd the attach_Dents to it. SECTION 2. Envirom~enta! ’~ev-:ew. The as the lead a~s=~.~v for the Project has dete_~mined than -’- ~-- cateJorica!!v exe~ from CEQA review under Guideline Section 15315, minor land c~v=s~ons. ~"~m~A ........... ~e~~== review of projec:s, no~ s~v individual me~i:s or approvals. CJL and BUILD intend to redevelop the size and have re~aeszed a preliminary, review by the Co’~ncil of :~e~ objectives ~" - ~-~:-: ....’-~:-~, ~..... ~ ~:=.::L~.Z review, W.:~_~: .S ~or~- :- intended to { ~=~Z~ fv s~ ;: cant issues and provide early p’~!ic information. Et review. As ~;~-=~=~ the proposed s~division conforms to local _~-=~_~_.~=’~-~=~_~=~, will no: have a _=i~_ifican: elf=~_~ ..... on and wi!l not p~=-_._ ~_’=~=.~.-:~e~:- s~se~den:_ land use decision for the nc ............ MaD caZegoricai:y exempt from CEQA is appropriate. SECTION 3.Tentative Map Findings. !. Ti~at ~_he mromosed map is noz consis:en: ~dzh ammlicab!e and specific mians == spec’_-~=.~ =r_, =e_~.o:: ~=-__:: is consistent with the P-_~m~=h=~=:--=_~__~_.~ Plan. 2 subdivision is plans: and spot: =: ~ _=lar.~ moT~=~: (!) m~<{~; ~,-~ - ..........;.~:-.c~ =_=~re ~.~=:~-~ Corridor areas as diverse ~-~ archaeoioci~=~ ~esources; =~ ’4) - - = ~= adverse im~ac:s of urbanA!:o ’ s -)m 3. Tha~ ~_he size is not physically sui~_bie for ~,he t3Cpe of deve! opmen ~ : No new development is proposed at this time, and the Tentative Map, as conditioned, is suitable for the existing use/bui!ding to remain in its present condition. 4. That tAe =~ ~= is not proposed density of development : suit-ab!e for the The s~iodivision of the parcel does not affect site ~=~s~v ~nd the ~e~za~ve MaD as conditioned, is suitable for ~h= existing use/building to_-=~-{~_..=.~ .... ~ its present condition. Or Tl~at thea__:g~==: .~ ...... ~.= ~5e subdivision or the proposed are likely to cause subsZa=ntia! enviromunenta! and avoidably fish or wild~ { == or ~heir The subdivision of :he existin~ parcel will not cause =-,:=~__~__~=~=~~.~__~_ damage or injure fi-~=~:, wi~ ~ ~ := or Z~=~__~ h-sioitaZ, as no new development is .....~.,~m~--~=~ at ~=- time. !n addition, :he s~-= as no~ !ocaned ~ t~e va~4~:~v of :ish or w=.~=:.e tat :u=ure development proj=~ w=!i un~ermo CEOA review :o its level ef immact to :he envirom:menz. mub!ic health ~.o~,~=__m-=, ==-- i: ~o== ..... not =ff=~ =he ....~.~_._~__;=~= on -~= ......a~d no new deve!ommen: ~s proposed at :his =ime. 7. Tina~ ,the of the subdivision or the of :mm~ovements ~:,ili confii~ wi"~ easements ac~aired b<: :Be m~,li~ proposed s~division. !n this coc~ection, the governing body may for use, wi!l be provided, and .L=S :hese wi!l be subsz~n:ia!iy to ones by :he public =~:- -~-~-~:ion shall amm~v ~_,~ ~o easements of recorc or ~o easements eszabiished by jud~en: ,~= ~ cour: of compe:en: ~nd no =u~5~4 ~y is here~z gr~n:=~ ~.~’ a !e~is!a~ive body :o de=e~ne wi~h .... ~ __subdivision wi!! not conflict easements on site, as al! easements w=:< be S~.~7 ~MaD ADorova! Granted. Hap approval is b_v nhe Ci:v Co-~nci! under ~<~cioal Code ~,,s~p,,)2~ ~2 ~nd o~ sO ~nd the Califo~=ia,¯,~-~ ~40~OfGoverm:ment Code Sectaon 66474, s~j ect zs :ne ~one ..... s approval in "=~-~ ~ 6 of ~= SECTDON 5. _ub..~m ....for ~=v{=w and by :heThe Hap = ~’~ ~ ~=~ .... -’-’--=,’+-"’- o: ~:~=of Pi=r_r:,ng ant ....i ~_m~_ v :Hapshall be in s~szanc~a/ confo~nce with the ......by :<ier & Wri~h= civil & Survevcrs, "~ ~ -:~m of ! ~aJe, dated P-~=~:=-" ~0, 2002 ’ - D~--~ .....002, except as modified "~, incormo~:’= condizions of in Section 6. A copy of :ni _" _= f: le in zhe of and Enviros_men:, :wo years cf :he approval daneP~’,---=~,z 21ar~_ing Division ~;= "~ -- =~:v= Hap, ~m= s,~divider shall ~-~-= -~= s"~division or " }~:~ as smecifiedan’..: mar: zn__eo: zo be ~d a _=_ ...... =, ,=~, Acc ~d ~Mp S~_~_o~; 2!. ~ s~cseG :o ~b_e ~:,:, En~<eer (P/-~C Section 21.16 . 010 [a] ) . of Approval. Department of Pia_nm.ing and Community Envirorument -~~=~Hap,in co~ formaNce ’:.’- .......- - c=~-:~ ~ 16~--- me filed with :he Divis : ~.~-Works "VIL ZE.L,:-- -~ncL~e=r~g Division ’ da:e. .T~:~ ~ ~La~d.... app::~=n~,---~~mong ~:~=~ : -- ~~:~= Cicv, and -- _ - ~*’~" ap~_inc Divi = ~ o< and i::=’~ Of ~:~e Co~_LvwL:h :he Csun:v ~: Sanza , u__.~= _ wich -:’= ~.Ta~~’~= s ~o~=~+ shall (i~ re~ire exiszing across :me en:ire proper:y, (if) con:inue apply =he exisning floor area razio -~ tb= =~= as a whole, and <iii) doc-~w~ent zhe c= zhe o<~er and any optionees, the City re~_ains ~he right to review, condition, and approve development on the site, as if this Hap had not been recorded, until such time as environmental review of a project on the site is completed by ,~he " ~-_ C.~_%,, and the Cou~ncii waives thiscondition or approves substanZia! new development on the site. This condi:ion does not requ.ire =hat both parcels be approved for simultaneously but t_he City may, at its soledis~=~-: .~._ ~Oli_. e a:~d d=~r~’ ~m~n ~ of accessopen space, utilities, and similar amenities on the two z The Covenant am~d ~= =-=n~ ~c~-,=_m=~t ~--~ -~s_._.=_~ =:so providethat the City, the authori:y ~o adjustment_ of thelot ~ -’..-.= ~=~w==.~ the newly created ~arcels as for Department of Public Works Public Works of the as measured in :he ::=-d, for de!e:ion of the non-access easement shall be provided on :he ~-~-~=~ HaD Department of Utilities -=. The Parcel HaD sha~ ~=: .....= the recorded Covena~nt-=s_m .....~=~ = -~=~=.proca! nonexclusive re!aZed thereto over a!l areas where u-~:-:== ~nd sewer currently exis= on :he i2.!62-acre srsmer:v. Term of Apprsv~i. ~ ~- -hive ;~’~-m ALL _~_--:--~ Hap shall be :~:~ ~ ~o_ no aoorova! of a m=-~=~ Ham Se___~:~ 2 :o 0< ~[c~) excem: :.~ -<-= concurrent recor~atxom of a finalized Covenant and Easemen: ~c~==m=n- r~r<=s~ a Parcel two-year period from ~he date of Tentative Hap approval, or such extension as may be gr~nted, the TenZa~ive Map shall expire ~nd all proceedings shall re,hate. Th~~==;~=~ no Parcel Hap shall be filed withouz firsz a Hap (P~ZC Section 2!.!6.0~0[d]). PASSED: 9-0. ~vES :Al!. NOES :None. z~m~]xim : None P2STE~NT_-ONS : ,£ =~RO%~D AS T0 FOPdff: CiW of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COU_~-CIL CITY MANAGER 7 DATE:~’L4_RCH 3..,00z CM]{:152:03 SL~CT:901 SAN ANTONIO RO_AA) [02-PM-02]: REQL~ST BY ~R & WRIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE CAMPUS FOR ~WISH LIFE TO SUBDIVIDE A 12.162-ACRE PARCEL WITH ~N EXISTING 5- STORY BUILDLNG LNTO TWO PA_RCELS. PARCEL ONE W-£LL BE 4 ACRES, ON ~VIzECH TEE EX~STLNG BUILDLNG ~qLL RES’L~k~-. AN-D PARCEL TWO ~qLL BE 8.162 ACR_ES. EN-VIRON_~’I~NqLAA_, ASSESS_~YEN~: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM TEE CALIFORN-I_A ENWIRON_N[ENTAL QUALITY ACT PER SECTION 15315---MLNOR L:~N-D DIVISIONS.ZONE DISTRICT: GM. REC ONEv[EN~DAT!ON Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend tha the City Council approve the Tentative Map: subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Attac~hment A) of ~e staff repo~-[ prepared for the Commission and attached to this report. PROJECT DE~ CRIP ~ ION The project consists of subdividing a single i2.162-acre parce! into two newly configured parcels. Pacei One would equM 4.00 acres in size and Parcel Two would equal ~.162 acres. The 12.!62-acre site is located in ~e General M~ufacmr~ ~.~,v~)"~, ~’ zone dis~ct and is designated for L~ht LndusEdal land use in the site is Mso located ~, ~e S~ Anto~o~avshore Comdor Employment Dis~ct ~d lies adjacent to Space Systems,~orM, ~e neighbo~g property to ~e north mid to the east across Fabi~ Way. The site h~ frontage on East Ch~leston Road. Fabi~ Wax,. ~d S~ _~o ~oaa. The ~pe~v. ~~ ~ ~~ s[orv office building w~ch is c~emiy vacan[. The bulldog and a por~on of ~e p~ng Io~ would remain on Parcel One, until such [~e as ~e unoccupied buiidiny is demo~shed ~vld~e SKei5 = .... ~ .... : .......... = ~-- ~--~ ..... " Two~ until such ~e as ~ne unoccupied bulldog on P~cel One is demolished ~d the pro’eel is re-developed. ~e ske deveiopmen[ regulations of ~e O~ zone dis~5c~ do not CMR:i52:03 Page i of 3 desig,-nate minimum requirements for site area; tot width and depth, yard areas, or lot coverage. The site does not abut any residential or Planned Communibr (PC) zone districts and therefore incurs no special requirements listed under the GM zone district. Therefore, the subdivision of this parcel does conform to the zone district site development regulations, aside from the issue of floor area ratio on Parcel One; which would be addressed by a recorded a~eement restricting, further development on the two parcels, while the existing building, stands. The a~eement would also assure the maintenance of leg.ally required parPdng, and utility ser~:ices. BOARD/CO~’KISSION RE:VIEW AN’-D ~CONL~’IE, N~ATIONS Plannin~ and Transz)ortation Commission The Commission reviewed this projec~ at its meeting of January 15, 200.3. The staff report has been provided as Attachment B and the meeting minutes have been provided as Attachment C. The Commission discussed the project and was in support of the proposed subdivision. After closing fl~e public hearing, the Commission unanimously (7- 0 vote) recommended a~rovat " ~~,o~ th~ Tentative Map to "dae City Council. ATTA CI~’I~NTS A~achment A: Recommended Conditions of Approval Attachment B: Report to the Pianning and Transportation Commission dated January !5, 2003 (w!o anachments) A~achrnent C: Plam~ing and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes AttacMnent D: Tentative Map (Council _, f~mbe~s only) PREPAR2~D B Y: Chris Planner Director. of Planning and Community Emdronment MANAGER >~PROV_~!: Assistant City Manager CMR.:.i52:03 Paso 2 of 3 CC:Margaret Sloan, ! 100 _~lma Street, Ste. 210, Menlo Park, CA 94025-3392 Gene Golobic~ 3350 Sco~ Boulevard, Bldg. 22, Santa Clara, CA. 95054 James Baer, 172 Universi~ Avenue, Pa!o ~to, CA 94301 Iris Gai, 5150 E1 Camino Real, Ste. 11-D, Los Aitos, CA 94022 Joseph.McCarthy, One Hawthorne Street, Ste. 400, San Francisco, CA 94105- Karen Groseclose, 3825 Fabian Way, M]S ]~.32, Palo .~dto, CA 94303-4604 Stephen Shoji, 3825 Fabian Way: M/S E.32, Palo ~to, CA 94303-4604 Barbara Platq 490 E1 Capitan, Palo Alto.. CA 94306 C~iR:152:03 Page 3 of 3 ATTAC~NT A RECO_,-~VIENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL January 15, 2003 901 San Antonio Road 02-PM-02 Department of Plannin2 and Community Environment Planning Division A Parce! Map, in conformance with fl~e approved Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC 21.16): and to the satisfaction of the City En~neer: shall be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Worl~ En~neering Division within two years of the Tentative Map approval date. A finalized Covenant and ]Easement A~eement between and among the applicant, the City: and Bridge Urban Infil! Land Developmen[: LLC, shall be submitted to the Planning_ Division and the City Attorney’s Office for review and approval and recorded with the County of Santa Clara: Office. of the County Clerk-Recorder concurrently with the Map. This document shall (i) require preservation of existing_ parking, access, and utilib, rights of the ~-’ ’ff~..~sun_ building across the entire property, (ii) continue to apply the existing floor area ratio to the site as a whole: and (iii) document the a~eement of the owner and any optionees, that the City retains the right to review, condition, and approve development on the site, as if this Map had not been recorded, until such time as environmental review of a pr~ect on the site is comMeted by the City, and the City Council either waives this condition or approves substantial new development on the site. This condition does not require that both parcels be approved for development simultaneously but the City may require coordination and development of access, par~dng, open space, utilities, and similar amenities on the two parcels. The Covenant and Easement A~eement shall also provide that the City.. retains the authority to require adjustment of the tot line between the newly created parcels as appropriate for future redevelopment of either. Department of Public Works Public Works En~neering Division Prior to recorda~ion, the exact dimension of the driveway, width., as measured in the ~.1~,-~~ ~ for deletion Of the non-access easemen~ shall be provided on the Parcel Map. Denartment of Utilities Utilities ~,Jater-C~m. Was~ewa~er Dfl.’ision -,,~, ne Parcel Man shall reference the recorded Covenant and ~as~m~m’c ~ ~ "A~eemsnt that includes recinroca!, n~-~usiv~ .......... ~u*~,,’ ....... ~a~m~ ~ ~ ..... for ,’,~’~l~, .... and s~ ~ ~ .......... s~ ,i~. and ~,at~ m ....o over ,L ~eas where utmues ~d sewer faci~fies cu~enfiv on the !2.162-acre prope~y. ATTACI-SM~N T B ¯ PLANNIT TG DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: PL%N~-£NG & TRANSPORTATION CO!vh-’vHSSION Cb_ris Mag-nusson DEPARTMEN~F: Planning and Community Planner Environment AGENDA DATE: SL’BJECT: January 15, 2003 901 San Antonio Road [0_-PM-0~]: Request by Kier & V~ ngnt on behalf of the Campus for Jewish Life to subdivide a 12.162-acre parcel with an e.’zisfing 5-story building into ~,o parcels. Parcel one will be 4 acres, on which the existing building will remain, and parcel two will be 8.!62 acres. Environmental Assessment: Categorically exempt from the Caiifornia Environmenta! Quality Act per section 153 !5---Nfinor Land Divisions. Zone District: GM. RECONh-’vIENI)ATION Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend approval of the Tentative Map to the CiD~ Council, subject to the a~tached Conditions of Approval (Attachment A). PRO.IECT DESCRI2PTION Site and Project Infonmation The projec~ consists of suodiv~mng a single 12.162-acre oarce! into two newly configured parcels. Parcel One would equai 4.00 acres in sizs ~d P~ceI Two wouid equ~ 8.162 acres. ~e !2.162-acre si~e is located in the General Manufacm~ng (GM) zone dis~ct ~d is desi~ated for Light ~dust~ l~d use in the City’s Comprehensive P!~. The site is Nso located in the San Antonio~avshors Comdor Emplo)~ent Disu~ct and flee a~acsnt to S~ace Systems~or~, the neighboring prope~y to the noah ~d ~o ~e eas~ across Fabian Way. The site has frontage on East Ch~leston Road, Yabi~ Way, ~d San Anto~o Road. The prope~, contNns mature ~_e~anon and a 257.980 squ~e foot. five-sto~ oflSce buil~ng wNch is cu~ent!y vac~t. The om~mn5 and a ~o~ion of the ~Nn~ lot would remNn on ~,~ One, unfiI such time as ~e unoccupied building is demoSshed ~d ~e site is N~her improved. bal~c~ of the p~Nng ~ea would rem~n on P~cei Two. untii such time as the unoccupied building on P~c~i One is demo~shed ~d ~e p~cal is re-d~veioped. The site daveiooment width and depth, v~d ~eas, or io~ ~ov~a_~. The site doas no~ abu~ any residen~ or P1~ned Co~uni~y ~C5 zona dis~c~s ~d :nererore incurs no spacial reuu~ements tistad under the zone disudct. Therefore: the subdivision of this parcel does conform to the zone district site development reguiadons: aside from the issue of floor area ratio on Parcel One, which would be addressed by a recorded a~eement restricting further development on the two parcels while the existing building stands. The a~eement would also assure the maintenance of legally required parking and utiliV services. Proiect History In~"00"~=, Sun Microsvstems. sold its office buildin_~ at this location to the Camnus~ for Jex~ tsh ~fe (CJL): a non-profit organization that provides educational and recreational sen4ces. The site, which has an.unoccupied five-story office building and parking facilities, is intended as the future home for the. C!L, which in cooperation with Bridge Urban Infill Land Development, LLC (BU-g_D): intends to develop community, recreational.and educational uses as well as housing on the site. The subdivision, without affecting or implementing site imnrovements of an?; kind, ~s proposed at this time to allow the two organizations to segegate their ownership interests while continuing to deveiop the site cooperatively. L~timate!y: the CJL plans to sel! Parcei One to BUILD and retain Parcel Two for its own use. POLICY LMPLICAT!ONS Comnrehensive Plan - The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Pain Alto Comprehensive Plan, both wir.h respect to the Light Industrial tand use category and adherence to the following policies of the Land Use and Community Desi=mn and Natural Enviromment Elements: Poiicv L-!: The Comprehensive Plan indicates to continue cm’:’enr Cio, policy limiring~tt~re urban devebpmenr ro cun’en@, developed lands wirMn the re’ban se~ice area. The exis~ng p~cel is located wi~in the uffo~ ~owth bounds’ ~d its subdivision is consistent with tNs policy by con~nNng ~e reuse of l~d wi~n Policy L-46: The ~~’o ;v’~c.omnr,.n,.ns~ ,. Plan states to maintain zhe Easr Ba-vsnore and 5an Antonio Roag/Bawhore Con-idor areas as dive,we bt~siness and ligh~ i~zdusrr~al disr~Sc~s. The project she 5es wiflvn ~e San _~tomo Roa~avshore Comdor Empio?~ent Dist~ct. The proposed subdivision is a precursor for ~e i~d use changes ~at would nrovide~ a more alx,~.~’, ..... ~x of se~,ices ~d ac~vities. Utilizing the project site for housing and co~umtv ....~s would benefit and add to ~e diversity of the employment dis~.ct, as it is akeadv situated in ~. ~ea se~wed by muki-mod~ transpo~a~on, an~ oppoauNty exzsts for future co~erciN ~d residential users ~o access San _~omo Road and East Chm-ieston Road. ~,?~ci~ .... ,~’~-<, movide dl bus sea, ices for co~ecdons to Iocal and reNonal mreas and to other ~ans~o~a~on modes. Ln addi~om sidewalk bike paths exist Nong these roads ~d connect to on-street bike lanes on Fabi~ SVav ~d o~er iOC~ s~cets. Although ~mre site uses other th~ ~ght industfiN may be ~onsm~r~, the emstm~ [~nd use desi~ation ~d the uses aEowed under ~e zone disuqct unaffected by .~s subdivision. Private cducation~ faci~ties and muitiple-f~]y residenti~ housing ~e pe~tmd uses in the GM zone ~suqct. as the site is located in an area of Moderate Sensitivity. ~-’ ~an~ proposed subdivision does not involve an), disruption to the existing uses and facilities on site. Therefore, an), future development proposal will be required to consider the presence of archaeolo~cal resources. Policy N-18: Th~ Comprehensive Plan notes to protect Palo Alto’s grouna’waterfrom the adverse impacts of urban uses. Contaminated soil and ~oundwater is present on site, as a result of hlistoric operations from the Ford Aerospace Company. However, this subdivision will neither alter the existing conditions nor present an?, new sig-nificant effect to the environment. Zonin_~ Ordinance Compliance The proposed subdivision, with the exception of the floor area ratio (FAR) on Parcel One, is in complianc.e with the site development regulations of the GM District (PMVIC 18.55.050). To keep the F.QZ on the overali site within code limits, the CJL and BUILD have as-reed to record a Covenant and Easement Ageement to insure that (a) the required parking for the existing building on Parcel One will be retained on Parcel Two; (b) cross access is provided; (c) utility seN,ices are maintained; and (d) there is no increase in floor area on either parcel. 2"he Director or Plara-nng and Community Environment is authonz~.d unae~ ,.x~sLm~. code to approve requJa-ed parking on a separate parcel that is within 500 feet of Parcel One ~AMC !8.83.120 [g.]). Parcel Two would be within this required distance. In essence, there would be no change to the on-site use, building, total number of parMng spaces avaiiable, mad vehicle cL-culation, as a result of the proposed subdivision. Subdivision Ordinance Comniiance The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the provisions of the SubdivisionOrdinance, in regard to Tentative Map requirements (~_’-Mk,!C 21.12) and design (P.Q’vIC 21.20). However, because the site is over five acres in size, the minor subdivision cannot be processed admihistrativelythrough the Director of Planning and Community Environment and requires review by the Planmng and Transportation Commission and City Council approval (P.~MC . 2i.08.020). SL,..;~D,<IARY OF SIGN-IHCANT ISSL.~S Floor Area Ratio The site development regulations of the GM zone district altow a maximum floor area ratio of up to 0.5 to 1 for nonresidential uses &AMC 18 .... 030[=][1]). Subdivision of the existing 12.162- acre parcel into two new parcels will create a non-conforming faciiity on the new Parcel One, in that the four-acre parcel’s floor area ratio woutd be appro~mateIy 1.5 to 1, Wen the e,~sting t_l.ll.JGl~a. -r ’~ >’"- under a Covenant and ~ recorded as p~ of ~e subNvision approval, wil! prevent ~v intensification of development beyond that pe~ed in ~h~ zoNng ordinance. As a result, no ad~fional oevelopment on bo~ new!v created p~ce~s would be ~1o yea until the excess floor ~ea is eE~nated, eider by demoEtion or by rezo~n~. Jm the " ~= ~= of such a.~ao~n~covenant, an appEcafion for exception (under P;%MC 21.32.010) would have be~n requ~ed ~d included under the project description ~d st~ reco~endation for considera~on of approval to Nlow ~e subdivision of a p~cel contNmng a b~ding over the m~dmum allowable floor ~ea ratio. Cir)., of Paio Alto Page 3 Non-Access ]Easement Since 1957, a Non-Access Easement prohibiting access to the site from San :antonio Road has been im effect, even t~hough a fight-turn lane and driveway on San Antonio Road has existed for some time. The Transportation Division recommends modix~,ing the Non-Access Easement by deletion of the dLdveway section. Approval of the Tentative Map and subsequent recordation of the Parcel Map will alter the easement appropriately. A condition of approval has been required to determine the exact widish of the dudveway for such p<~ose. Existin~ Utilities Throu~_h the Covenant and Easement Agreement, the CJL and BLTg_,D have a~eed to pant to each other reciprocal nonexclusive utility easements foil utility and sewer sen,ice (and maintenance related thereto) oYer all areas where utilities and sewer facilities currently exist. No future development would be approved on either site without plans, indicating each unit, parcel, or place of business possessing its own water and gas meters, sewer lateral cormecfions: and water, fire, irrigation, and gas services from street mains to the parcel. A condition of approval has been required to reference this recorded a~eement on the Parcel Map that is required for subsequent re,dew and approval. Future Development .Am.), new activity, including demolition or construction on the proposed parcels: will be required to conform to all zoning requirements and adhere to all California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) =maidelines. The subdivision, without affecting or implementing site improvements of any kind, is proposed at this fine to allow each orgamzadon (i.e., CJL and Bb ,-U_.D) to achieve ownership and financial responsibility of their portion of the existing site. Through future redevelopment of both parcels, a lot line adjustment may be required to implement an appropriate.development plan. The City retains the fight to require further adjustments in the lot line between the parcels if appropriate for furore development of either site. PLrBLIC NOTICE Public Notice of the PlanNng Commission hearing for the proposed subdivision was nrovided by publication of the agenda in a iocal newspaper of general circulation. In addition, a hearing notice card was maited to properU’ owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site. Minor land divisions that conform to al! zoning regulations are exempt from CEQA review under Section 15315 of ~e CEQA Guide~n~s. C~3 ~". ,_~ requ~-es review ofproi~crs, not simply tony]duN pe~rs or approvNs. C~ ~d.BL~D intend to r~d~ etoD the site and have requested a preli~n~y, non-binding review by the City Council of the~ objectives. ~e preens, review, wNch is non-bin~ng, is intended to idenfffy si~ficant issues and provide e~ly public info~afion. It precedes CEQA review. As conditioned, ~e proposed subdivision co~o~s to loc~ zoNng regulations, wil! not have a si~fic~t effect on the ~nv~o~ent. and wiE not pre- dete~ne subsequent l~d use decision for the site. Therefore, finding ~e Tentaffx, e Map categofic~ly exempt from CEQA is appropriate. Cio, of Palo Alto Page 4 NEXT STEPS Following. review by the Planning and Transportation Commission: the application will be heard by the CiD, Council on February 10, 2003. If the City Council approves the Tentative Map, the applicant may apply for approval of a Parcel Map. The Parcel Map will be reviewed for compliance by City staff, and a final action wil! be made by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Attachment A. Attachment B. Recommended Conditions of Approval Tentative Ma~ (Commission M~mb~s Only) COURTESY COPIES Margaret Sloan, t100 Alma Street, Ste. 210, Menlo Park, CA 94025-3392 Gene Golobic, 3350 Scott Boulevard, Santa Clara, CA. 95054 James Baer, 1"72 University Avenue, Paio Alto, CA 94301 L-is Gai, 5150 E1 Cam/no Real, Ste. !!-D, Los Altos, CA 94022 Joseph McCarthy: One Hawthorne Street, Ste. 400, San Francisco, CA 94105-3957 Karen Groseclose, 3825 l=abian Way: M!S 5.32, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4604 Stephen Shoji, 3825 Fabian Way, M/S E.32, Palo ?-,Ato, CA 94303-4604 Prepared by:Chris Mag-nusson Planner Reviewed by:A_my French, AICP Manag~er of Current Planning Department/Division Head Approvah Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City ofPaio Aizo Page 5 1 5 7 8 9 I0 !I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 ~D 24 .MIEET]NGS .M:LE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNS, lENT ACCESS CHA.N.rNEL 26: January 1~, 2003 SPECIAL MEETING -7:00 PM CiO, Council Conference Room Civic Cen~er, lsr Floor 250 Hamikon Avenue Palo Ako, California 94301 EXCERPT of 1/15/03 minutes of the Planning and Transportation Commission ROLL CALL: 7.’05 PM Comnzissioners: Annerze Bialson, Chair Michael G~Sffin, Vice-Chair Karen Hohnan Pan, ok Bu~ Bonnie Packer Phyllis CasseI Yoseph BelIomo A GENDIZED ITEMS: staff.. &eve Ernslie, Planning Director Amy French, Curren~ Planning Manager Wynne Furrh, Senior Assismnr CiO, Anon~ey &even Turner, Planner Chris Magnusson, Planner Joseph Kotz, Chief Transporzarion Official Zariah Bergen, Executive Secrerar~ 1. 901 San Antonio Avenue 2. 800 High Street 26 IS 29 30 3t 34 38 ORAL COMM[<VICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to an}, 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 avaiiable from the secretary of the CommSssion. ~e Planning and Transportation Com_rm~aon r~s,.._ ~ ~s me right to limit the oral communications pe~od to 15 minutes Chair Bialson: ! would like to calI this meetms to order. Wout~. the s..~.~.ta~ : ~_leas~. ca!!~ rot!. Thank. you. The first item on our agenda is Orai Communications. Members of the public may soeak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of 3 minutes per speaker. 2-’nose who desire to soeak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretory of the Commission. :-~ne c~mma~on~ rese~;es the ,4~=~,h~ ............ ~c ~mit the :’,.’-a~ c~,-~,,~-o.;,~,, ~ .... o,~n,~,..~. ~ ~"~ to ~_. "~ minutes. ! have no cards so I’!l close. Oral Communications. Cio’ of Palo Alto Pa~e 1 ! 5 6 7 8 9 !0 1i 13 15 17 19 20 2i CONSENT CALENDA_R. Items will be voted on in one morion uniess removed from the calendar by a Commission Member. None. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Chair Bialson: Next are .agenda changes, additions and deletions. There wi11 be one agenda change under the New Business public hearings. It, m ~2, with regard to .901 San Antonio Avenue will be heard prior to the 800 High Street matter. UNFI,_VISHED BUSINESS. Public Hearings: None. Other Itemx: None. NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearings: 901 San Antonio Avenue*: Request by Gene Golobic of Kier & Wright on behalf of James Baer of the Campus for Jewish Life to subdivide a !2.162-acre parcel with an existing 5-sto~’ building into r.wo parcels. Parcel one wiII be 4 acres, on wNch the existing building wili remain, and parcel two wilt be 8.!62 acres. EnvL-onmental Assessment: Categorically exempt from the. California Environmental Quality Act per Section bl_,±_-, .... Minor Land Divisions. File No: 0~-PM-0~. Zone Disu-ict: 26 29 3O 3i 23 35 36 39 4O 45 46 Chair Biaison: And mtdng no extra time, will Staff mal¢e their presentation with regard to 901 San .’~nmnio Avenue, please. W\,nne YuKh. Seior Assistant City Attorney: Excuse me, at your places and also at the table where the public can pick it up is a revised set of approval conditions for this project. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Chris Ma_o-nusson, Planner: Good evening, Chair Bialson, Members of the Commission. My nmme is C~fis Ma~usson. I reoresent City of PNo Alto Pl~ning Division as a r-~. assi~ed to ins a~m~ca~on. The application before you is the subdivision of the existing ~ ~ ’ acre property at 90! S~ .~toNo Road. The subdivision would create a property division in which there would be two ~arcsls. Parcel 1 would contain the exisdns building and a ~o~ion of the paring ~ea on site. It would be approMma~ty 4 acres in s~z~. Pmcel 2 remmmnz S+ acres will cont~n ~e b~ance of the e~sfin~ p~ng ~ea. The appiica~ion is brought fo_,’~ by the Campus for Jewish Life the current prope~y owner in ]~,,-or~ ~,~ ~mr~ r~ <~c ~ir~ and share econo~c of ins ~rop~gv with the B~d~e Urban Lnfil! L~d D~ ~lopm~nt Comply. L~timatelv. C~pus r~or Jewish ~fe Naris ~o se~ Parce! 1 to Bfidg~ housing ~d " ’re~mn P~ce! ~ for its own Cir3, qf Palo Aim Page 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl !2 13 14 17 18 19 2O 22 24 26 27 28 30 31 38 39 40 4i 45 ¯ a+,D 47 The proposed subdivision complies with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the tentative map and desig-n requirements of the subdivision ordinance, .the site desi=~n regulations of the GM zoning district in regards to the subdivisions effect upon the sites for area ratio. Parcel 1 is brought into conformance with the Covenant and Easement Aa-reement which does not allow any furore development to.occur [with that] bring this situation into compliance. This ageement also accounts fo.r access to the maintenance of existing utilities on site. In reference to CEQA.. this minor subdivision is exempt from the r_,nvlronm~.ntal~ " ’~ " review’ and that no development is proposed associated with the subdivision. There’s no creation of a sig-nificant effect upon the environment and its subdivision wit! not determine subsequent land use for the site. Furthermore, there’s no alteration of any existing site conditions or site improvements proposal required at this time. Due to the property being over 5 acres in size, the subdivision ordinance requires that the application be reviewed by the Planning and Transpo~ation Commission and City Council. Othe~,ise, this application would have been processed administratively throu~ the Director for Planning and Community Environment. With that said, Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend approval of the tentative map to the City Council subject to the Revised Conditions which I believe you have a cop); of. Amd I’d be happy to answer an?, questions you may have at this time. Also, Sandy Sloan, the applicant’s representative is here to answer further questions. Chair Bialson: Thank you very .much. Commissioners, any questions? Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I have a question. I noticed in the revised recommended conditions of approval, there are a couple of points, which in part answers mv initial question, which I was going to ask. What if when we start_ looking at the proposals for development of the site, we think that maybe a larger area would be needed for the housing and we want to play around with that. ~amd I see that the Revised Conditions of Approval seem to address that in saying that the City retains-the fight to review and approve development of the site as if the map has not been approved and that the City would retain the authority to require adjustment of the lot line. But my question is, what if a sale on one of the subdivided lots to bridge occurs before the City can exercise its autho~tv to move the lot line, then how do you deal with all that at the right . Ms. Furth: I think there are severM levels of answers to your auery. Because this is a lot di’,..’ision, a ~arcei nmp lot split, at the very besinnina of a process that the prop~.~cv owner , ’ ~ to do to segregate economic interest, the investment of build in this site and their own investment in that site. Before the City has gone through the planning process and before you’ve done enviroramenta! review on the site, our goal here was two-foid. One was to make sure that the sites remain linked in terms of calcuiatin_~ the Noor Area Ratio because of the iar_~e ~--; " ~ building. That building can’t --~ :_ ~, .....= and o~e.~.~s~ on one pa_~cei without havins -,o--k~,, ~,additional ar~.~ on the o~h~.~ lots. The first thing we.did was tying those two tots together essentially so that until the exisdns~ building comes down [h~-~ _~ won’[ "n~_ ....., ~. o ~ ~ ~ ¯fur:net ~a_ ~lODm~.,s~a on .~ site. City of Paio Alto Page 3 ! 4 ? 9 !0 !1 12 !3 14 15 !6 17 18 t9 20 21 23 26 3O 3t 34 27 39 40 45 47 Secondly, because while we "know that there’s an intention to build housing and there’s an intention to build a Community Center, we don’t know anything more about it.. So now is not a veW good rime to try to plan the access or circulation or any of those other things. So this is designed to retain that [power to plan] the site as a whole, it’s a recorded Covenant and A~eement .to that effect. You’ll also, of course, need to deal with the realiD’ that you have two interested parties in this piece of land and I’m sure. they’~A have views as to how they wish to use and share with but the City retains its planning authorir,,. 2~nd because it’s a Covenant that went with ~e !and that’s how we deal with the possible sale of this to a third party. Chair Bialson: Karen. Commissioner Hohnan: A couple of clarifications. Sometimes the may, shall, wii! words get to be confusing. So under the Revised Conditions of Approval says, "77ze CiO, maa, require coordinario~ and developmenr.ofaccess parlqng open space, etc." With the word ’shall be’, what would reeuire it? With the word shalI or is the word may the appropriate word? Ms. Furth: We’re just ~rying ~o We the City authority. We’re not trying to direct the City as to what kind of outcome it comes to. So I think "maw is appropriate. ..’ " itCommissioner Holman: Okay. that’s one..And then just also for clarification on numoer says "Rerai~zs the aurhoriO, ~o require adjustment of the lo~ li~e." From my simple way of looking at this, I was thinldng that adding the word ’reconfiguratJonTadjustment’ would c!arifv that it woutdn’t mean necessarily just a laterai move of the lot line and that the tot line actually might change from being a su-aight line. Ms. Yur~h: A lo~ line adjustment under subdivision law can be. you can stretch i~ an}, way you want. It simply means reallocafing and moving the division somewhere within that larger site. So I think the existing term is clear in the context of subdivision law. Commissioner Hohnan: Then the last question is, my understanding is, Was it the intention of the City for this project to come back to us. The joint planing that would be happening on this wiI1 be ~,o parcels and for that to come back to the Planning and Transportation Commission. Is that the case or not? Steve Emsiie. Plannin~ Director: Yes, that is the case. Tlie process that we’ve envisioned for this is ~o consider as vou’ve mentioned the need to consider this as a whole project. It’s a large parcel that needs to be master planned in consideration of the total impact this parce! would have on ~he sun’ounding area. Who: we have envisioned is u~iiizing the pre-screenin~ process. There’s a tentatively scheduled pre-screening in front of the City Council on January 27. There would be a public hem-ing so the public will be invited to give comments and testimony on tha~. We framed about 10 issues for the Council to We feedback on to policy issues and tha~ would be used as a framework that we would proceed to do the master planning at this site and we would retrain to the P!anmng Comam2ssion to implement that po!icv direction as it relates to the redevelopment of this site. Chair Biatson: ThaN:you. Pat. Ci~, of Polo Al~o Page 4 1 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 !! 12 13 14 15 1{5 17 18 19 20 23 26 27 28 29 30 3! ,-,,~ .36 3,3 40 A A 47 48 Commissioner Burr: Wynn, would you clarify for us the rationale for going from the ori~nat recommended conditions for approval to the revised ones again? Ms. Furth: It’s essentially clarity. We worked on the teclmical documents themselves but we wanted it to be clear that the CiD/s intention here is to approve and the Staffs recommendation here is to approve this lot split so that this project can proceed with its two parties going forward with their development. It’s important for their transactions to be able to transfer actual title to a portion of the property to build, not to simply have a shared interest or option or whatever. So we didn’t want to say no to that and delay their pro~ess, but at the same time the City hasn’t done environmental review in this site. A number of the Commissioners have talked to Staff pointing out that this is an InfK! recon~5=~tration project. It’s a big site. It’s going to have lots of issues about access, about orientation, about how you’ll be a good neighbor to the industrial uses around it, at the same time make an attractive-place to be near the freeway and all that good transportation resource down there so it’s too soon. In addition, the Public Works Department which would ordinarily address at this point Public Works improvements to.the street and so on and around the perimeter of the site, there’s not a lot of point in doing that now when we have only a va_~zue idea of " ’ "~wnaL the future deveIopment will be as long as the applicant is witling to say we’ll let you do that later. So we wanted it to be clear to you and to the pubIic and,-of course, to the applicant that we recommend that the City approve "d~is lot split essentialh, for ~ur~oses of ~ ~: "~ ~c~am~ng ownership but not to lose its power to pl~ the site as a whole. Commissioner Bun: Thank you. And then a second question for either yourself or other members of the Strut. The Green Meadow Community Association had a handout at our places raising some questions and concerns. Have you received a copy? Is that anything you’ve had a chance to review? Ms. Fu~h: _Not vet. Commissioner Bun: Perhaps a little later in the session, you .could comment on the issues that they ralsea. Ms. Furth: Certainly, Chair Bialson: .~rn, other questions from the Commissioners? Michaet. Vice-Chair Griffin: I’m wondering if we can have a brief discussion on the hazardous material asaects of this..~n ;. if you m-e able to address that a little bit for us. .Qmv French. Current Plannin_~ Manaser: We have not again received any data on the hazardous materials. !shouid say the undergound [plumej that has a~.vdo~d under ~ff~marilv !or aspect of tNs site. th~ ioca~on is p~m~iy ~e p~Nng iot. the appSc~t would probably better be able to answer ~at auesfion.~ . so as we have not re~iv~3~ ~ ~ a~p~cation, w~ have not begun an envffo~ental r~~ ~Je~., W~ don’t re~!v., have that data. It’s my understandins du~ t~t 5F~CO~Da~ "~""~-~’"u~ Si~. ~ ~ aster to the ~--~: wha[ ~ev Imow. CiO, of Paio Afro Page 1 4 5 7 8 9 10 ii 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 2! 2~ 26 28 29 30 34 37 2,8 39 40 41 ~5 46 48 Chair Bialson: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I.’m read?, to make a motion unless Staff wants to respond. Chair Bialson: We want to Nve an opportunity for the public to speak and shouid the applicant wish to speak. Mr. Emslie: You’ve had a chance to review the statement that was distributed toni,~d~t. Precisely for the reasons that Wynn articulated earlier are to address the concerns raised in this issue so that the cumulative impacts of this site on an aggregate basis would be considered and the condition that Wwm has revised and presented to you tonight Nves us that authori~, so we do believe that the conditions as revised addresses the concerns in the Ie~er presented. Chair Bialson: 79~ank you. Any other questions before the public? Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I think I’m still a little bit confused goout my initial question. _and that is. this lot solit happened, let’s say whoever is the owner of Parcel 1, and there’s this Covenant that runs with the land that savs the lot line is going to chan_~e.~ How do you. have a l~,~al~ description of the property? Ms. l=urth: Clearly, this is not the same .thing as having a lot split which. Nves you two parcels with no ties between them, with no right to park on the other side or have transportation to the other side or to adjust the boundaries. This rm sure is not the first choice of the applicant. But the).,’ need to senarate these parcels. 7"nese are BLrK,D as a developer whose principle investor is a public agency. I’m sure they have numerous conditions on the financing and the CJL as a coalition of non-profits also has its o~vn particular needs as it raises funds and establishes its own entitlements to property. So they wil! not have simple alienable parcels as the result of this. They will have a parce! that can be soid but it’s a parcel that’s sold on the understanding that it’s part of a larger entky for planning purposes. Chair Bialson: Would the Corn_missioners like to have the applicant come before us to ask questions of that applicant? Does applicant wish t9 speak to this? t L-~ow that the attorney for the applicant is present. Sandy Slo~: I’m Sandy Slomn. the applicant’s attome,~; and Lydia Tan from Bridge Housing is also here. The oni~, specirSc question t tNmk that Wvrm didn’t ~swer was about ~e toxic condition of the site..~nd unfo~nately, we don’t ~ow the details. ~s site was clewed uo at the time that Sur, bou~ht~ it so it ,5,as up to cc~nerciai stand,de. The question: now zs’ ~d~m~,~’-~ ~ ~:~J standards for cie~iiness are Ngher ~d so one of the reasons that Bridge has purchased or is drawing ~e line where it is, is the ~ea where the housing is needs to be clever th~ the rest of it ~d @at’s ~e eisner p~. But ~e studies, the dennis, ~e techNc~ answers will corns out in ~e Env~o~enta! ~pact Report. Commissioner BuK: A small follow up question. Given that the to-~c clean-up standards for the residential portion may be ruore resu,-ictive, are there standards that apply to recreational areas that might be pa~ of the other parcet that are equivalent to the residential standards or are those akin to the corrm:~ercial standards? Cio’ of Paio Ai~o Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 !0 i! i3 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 24 26 3O ZD ~A 2/ 4O 42 45 46 47 48 Ms. Sloan: I’m real!y not an expert in environmental toxic law but the standards for day care centers .and if the), are senior housing on the CJL portion: those are the same as for residential standards but not necessarily just a regular community center. So that’s why they’re fiddling around with the location of the uses. Commissioner Burr: Thank you. Chair Bialson: We have one card from the public to speak and if anybody else wishes to speak, please, fill out a card. I have now two cards. Each speaker will have five minutes and the first speaker is Barbara Platt to be foliowed by Bob Moss. Barbara Platt. 490 ]El Canitmn. Pato Alto: I’m going to read this statement that was handed out so that everyone can hear. I’m here this evening to deliver a statement on the matter of subdivision of the riew JCC site at 901 San .Antonio Road. The Green Meadow Community Association Civic Affairs Committee prepared the statement and it was approved by members of the Association’s d,,~,ra-~ e board. We’d like to ask the subdivision of the 12.2-acre lot be ~anted only if agg-regate impacts of the two subdivided lots are required to be reported. It is our understanding that onh, traffic impacts from an approved projects are required to be included in EIR’s. Therefore, by cutting the site into twe projects with different development schedules, each projects trahSc impacts could be considered separately. Separately, they could be understated. The combined scale of the JCC and Bridge House Corporation pr~ects is huge and is likely to have sig-nificant impacts on Charleston Road traffic and surrounding neighborhoods. These a__,_~e~ate impacts must be considered in context of the full array of the development that will generate traffic on the Charleston’s school corridor over the next 5 to 10 years.. We know that Hvatt simultaneously wi!! be deve!oping a project of similar proportion at the other end of Charleston. We know the ful! impact of the expansion of Challenger School has not ~e, been felt. The school does not expect to reach fuI! capacity for four more years. Most of their student body is commuters from Mountain View and Sunm~,ale. We expect the Elks decision to sell their properb’, which is zoned for housing wil! result in development, which wilt increase ~raffic on Charleston. We expect the .<Ibertson’s expansion will draw more re=~ional traffic. V, re expect that the numerous sites on E1 Camino near Charleston in the new housing site invento~ also willg_em,~ate new tr~ic. With at! of these projects moving forward, a master plan for the Charleston’s school corridor is ne~aea. Accurate re~ort~n_~, of o -~~mp~c~_, ~s necessary_ to m~s =~od info~ation available for development of a viable masmr plum P!easa do not subdivide wi~hou~ requinng r~pomng of aggrezate ~pacts of the two p~s o~ m~ JCO~fid~e Housin~ Co~oraJon proiect. Th~ vou. Chair Bia!son: ThaN: you very much. Next speaker is Bob Moss and ! have no other cards. Bob Moss. 4010 Or’me. Palo Alto: You’ve got some ~zuestions about toxic and I may have some answers for you. i used to work on that site and as you M~now, I’m associated with the ~and "~o’:°~ ~K, Association foundation, which ÷~’- 13 ~ ....n,,~." ...."oeen ......" c~-_. .....o~.~.~.m= the two suoer Zun sites. !50t and 640 Pa~e Nfi!l Road. !’m also com~umtv co-ch~ of the Moffe~ Field Restoration Advisor, Bo~d, wNch is ciea~ng up Moffe~ field so I have auite a bit of experience with City of Paio Aho Page 7 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 i0 !! 12 13 i4 15 i6 17 18 !9 20 2! 23 29 3O 3~ ~0 46 toxics. The only thing_ I’ll tel! you is that my history on this site is about 10 years out of date in terms of the actual concentrations. But let me We you some information on what’s there and where it came from. The Staff Report is incorrect that says it came from Yort Aerospace. R did not. It came from 3 of these buildings over here on the site between Yabian and Charleston, spread across the street and is approximately, this is as I said 10 years old, approximately covered this area here at relatively tow concentrations. Some primarily TCE and DCA and a little bit of freon. There was a saul1 scale over here from people working at Ford Aerospace, they basically dump the bucket of solvent on the pavement. That was cleaned up 15 years ago. As far- as I know, now again, it may have spread in the last 10 years. As far as I know: there was nothing beyond approximately that driveway. So the area, which is set aside for housing, should not be particularly impacted. Pat had a question about the toxicity levels. Children are a more sensitive receptor than adults and the concentration levels allowed for children is lower than it would be for adults. And for recreation facilities, it’s just considered the same as office or industrial because people are not there 24 hours a day. And the concentration ieve!s al!owed for something like that would be hi=he~ than they would be for residential. So the people who are workin~ there in the office building were at reiativetv low risk. It was the lowest type of popuiation. Children at daycare and people living in the residential area would be higher isk. As ! say, as far as I lmow, my data is i0 years old, there wasn’t an}, concentration over here but it may have moved. Commissioner Bu~: One brief question. If you know, Bob, you mentioned this as TCE contamination? Moss: That’s the most common solvent that% used in electronics. Commissioner Bun: But this is TCE contamination? .~. Moss: Pr~mri!v. There’s about 5 or 6 components and it varies. The concentration -,,aries from we!l to well and because my data is old, I don’t want to tell you it’s this over here and that over there. Commissioner Bun: So I don’t !mow whether you imow or whether Sta2~f can provide this or whether it’s just we can a’Nt until the final prqiect comes in. But the solvent issue as I understand them are primm-iiy water contamination issues on surface soils, they are ~oing to volatilize. What becomes the public health issue? ivfr. Moss: It’s kind of interestin~ because they just went through a big exercise at Moffett field for the housing that was proposed there. >rod su~risingty, even though the concentrations of to.-dcs in the ~ound order are not that ~reat. The.,.; found fairly significant concentrations in the m~.- both m’ buildings "-"~’~,n~,, m’ the~n,.~s~,_~’’‘ ’~o units and just basically ~" the ~ound. Ti]~v%e stil! r_rving to figure out what to do with this. They reported the results without acmaliy analyzing it because people are really concerned. _’~_nd it was quite, sufficing that we got that much out. But you’re correct. Typically if you have it in the g-round water, unless you have a method of h-ar~sDor[~ ~zou~ mc ~ound water to you.. . -’~u’ don’t ,--v,~ ~ ~ ~ = we ~,’~,~’~-’~ <~m,~u=~’-~- ~’:" Cir. of Paio A~o Page 8 5 6 7 8 9 !0 !1 10 14 i5 16 !7 !8 19 20 21 t_his again with Moffett just last we~k. _The people who are most exposed are construction workers because the?, wil! dig into the g-round and acmalty expose the soil and the [papers]. Commissioner Burr: Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much, Bob. I have no other speaker cards so I’ll close the public hemdng aspect. A_re there any comments by Commissioners? Karen. MORON Commissioner Holman: I mus~ apoloNze for the public because I did not see any cards earlier so I jumped the gun on malting a mo~ion but I am prepared to make a motion. Given that there will be combined impacts on the two lots; I’m in support of Staffs intention to consider this property as one development and, of course, am in suppoi~ of all requirements of subdivision ordinance being met regarding open space, public space, circuIation, etc. ’And so.~ thus, I move approval of the revised recommended Conditions of Approval for 901 San ~amtonio Road subdivision. Chair Biatson: Did you want to speak to the motion, more thanyou did? Commissioner Holman: I tAink I have. 26 28 29 30 3! 32 25 36 4O ,4 ’7 Chair Bialson: .And we have a se.cond? PhyI]is. SECOND Commissioner Casse!: I think what needs to be said at this time has been said and I concur with the comments that we’ve had. Chair Bialson: ,,am.-,: other comments by Commissioners? Pat. Commissioner Bun: I have a follow up quesdon for Staff. We have a number of developments pending on The Charleston con-idor. How are we going to be looking at those traffic impacts in an ag~e=~ate fasNon? Me. Emslie: The California Environmental Quality Act which governs how we analyze CEQA impacts of traffic and other enviroiLmen~al impacts, the speaker from Green Meadow is [inaudible] that CEQA requires that as a minimum tha~ you mus’~ iook at, projects that are for~seeabie and those projects have been de~’ined as those wiJch are active application pending. But that does not preclude the City from going further to analyze-the impacts, t:or example, in the Ricky’s final EIR you will see that the impacts o~ th,, potential redevelopment of th~ Elks site will be ~alyzed and presented to you and the ma~5c ana!vsis even though there is not a_n active application pending, .we just know that there is a foreseeable reasonable expectation that that property may re-develop. So J~rough the Environmental Impact Report, you will be able to revmw and anaiyze the impact of reasonable and foreseeable furore projects whether th,,.~,, s an ~ Lii~ ma]oT ie-Geve]oDmeTi[ or development areas that have the. potential to develop I would say a lO-year dmeframe. I think Cir. of PaZo Aim Page 9 3 5 7 8 9 10 !t 17 19 2O 23 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 _~5 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 it’s fairly easy to identify those and study those impacts and factor them into a cumulative analysis. Commissioner Burr: We also have had as part of our transportation study discussion of the Charleston school commute corridor. Will all of these prospective developments and impacts on that corridor be looked at comprehensively at that time? mlis,le. ~e fight answer is yes and I’ll ask Joe Kott to expand on the status of the Charleston school route corridor. Joe Kott. Chief TransnoKation Official: We’re engaged in a stud), of South Palo ~Mto school commuting in an area. wide basis but within that study, we have a focused analysis of the Charleston Road corridor. _amd we’1! look at pending developments and their likely impact pardcuIarty in bicycle and pedestrian safety. Chair Bialson: Joe. Commissioner BeI]omo: Just a clarification, Steve. As this is developed either simultaneously or different developments, would the EIR be scripted together or would there be two separate ct~.,~ dopment,EIR’s on a development like this in response to an ag~egate "~ -~o _k@. Emslie: It would be scripted together as an ag~egate. Commissioner BelIomo: Even though this development might not proceed before one or the other, how would that be? Mr. Emslie: There’s a couple or tuner,mr ways it would go. One way to deal with a phased project is a prog-rammed FIR where you would look at the impacts of the whole pro~am and then subsesuent projects would either fall within that program EIR or need to do a subsequent EIR, Bm thin ~ the common apnroach to d~.alLn= with this type of issue. MOTION PASSED Chair Bialson: Any other comments? No. I think.w~. ~. ready to vote. All those in favor of the morion on the table, please say ave. A~. AYe. Chair Bialson: Opposed? So that passes unanimously, Thank you. That’s all that we need to do with regard to Item~,,,’-’~ 901 San .~mtoNo. ... End of Except... Cio’ of Paio Aho Pa~e lO The Cily of Palo Alto 901 San Antonio Road Land Use Map Attachment E This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 250’