Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-03 City Council (4)City of Pallo Allto City Manager’s Repor TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: MARCH 3, 2003 CMR:152:03 901 SAN ANTONIO ROAD [02-PM-02]: REQUEST BY KIER & WRIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE CAMPUS FOR JEWISH LIFE TO SUBDIVIDE A 12.162-ACRE PARCEL WITH AN EXISTING 5- STORY BUILDING INTO TWO PARCELS. PARCEL ONE WILL BE 4 ACRES, ON WHICH THE EXISTING BUILDING WILL REMAIN, AND PARCEL TWO WILL BE 8.162 ACRES. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PER SECTION 15315--MINOR LAND DIVISIONS. ZONE DISTRICT: GM. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Cormnission recolrcmend that the City Council approve the Tentative Map, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment A) of the staff report prepared for the Commission and attached to this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of subdividing a single 12.162-acre parcel into two newly configured parcels. Parcel One would equal 4.00 acres in size and Parcel Two would equal 8.162 acres. The 12.162-acre site is located in the General Manufacturing (GM) zone district and is desl~.natcd for Light Industrial land use in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The site is also located in the San Antonio/Bayshore Corridor Employment District and lies adjacent to Space Systems/Loral, the neighboring property to the north and to the east across Fabian Way. The site has frontage on East Charleston Road, Fabian Way, and San Antonio Road. The property contains mature vegetation and a 257,980 square foot; five- story office building which is currently vacant. The building and a portion of the pal’king lot would remain on Parcel One, until such time as the unoccupied building is demolished and the site is further improved. The balance of the parking area would remain on Parcel Two, until such time as the unoccupied building on Parcel One is demolished and the parcel is re-developed. The site development regulations of the GM zone district do not -,~ .~Pa~e 1 of 3CMR: 1 ~:0.~~ designate minimum requirements for site area, lot width and depth, yard areas, or lot coverage. The site does not abut any residential or Planned Community (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 agreement restricting further development on the two parcels while the existing building stands. The ageement would also assure the maintenance of legally required parking and utility services. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Planniny, and Transportation Commission The Commission reviewed this project at its meeting of January 15, 2003. 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 the public hearing, the Commission unanimously (7- 0 vote) recommended approval of the Tentative Map to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Recommended Conditions of Approval Attachment B: Report to the Planning and Transportation Commission dated January 15, 2003 (w/o attachments) Attachment C:Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment D:Tentative Map (Council Members only) PREPARED BY: Cl-n-is Mag Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: S teye Emshe Director. of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Emil, Assistant City Manager CIvIR: 152:03 Page 2 of 3 Margaret Sloan, 1100 Alma Street, Ste. 210, Menlo Park, CA 94025-3392 Gene Golobic, 3350 Scott Boulevard, Bldg. 22, Santa Clara, CA. 95054 James Baer, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ills Gai, 5150 E1 Camino Real, Ste. ll-D, Los Altos, CA 94022 Joseph McCarthy, One Hawthorne Street, Ste. 400, San Francisco, CA 94105- 3957 Karen Groseclose, 3825 Fabian Way, M/S E.32, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4604 Stephen Shoji, 3825 Fabian Way, M/S E.32, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4604 Barbara Platt, 490 E1 Capitan, Palo Alto, CA 94306 CMR:152:03 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A RECOMM~ENq)ED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL January 15, 2003 901 San Antonio Road 02-PM-02 Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division A Parcel Map, in conformance with the approved Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works Engineering Division within two years of the Tentative Map approval date. A finalized Covenant and Easement Agreement between and among the applicant, the City, and Bridge Urban Infill Land Development, 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 utility rights of the existing building across the entire property, (ii) continue to apply the existing floor area ratio to the site as a whole, and (iii) document the agreement 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 project on the site is completed 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, parking, open space, utilities, and similar amenities on the two parcels. The Covenant and Easement Agreement sha!l also 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. Department of Public Works Public Works Engineering Division 4.Prior to recordation, the exact dimension of the driveway width, as measured in the field, for deletion of the non-access easement shall be provided on the Parcel Map. Department of Utilities Utilities Water-Gas- Wastewater Division o The Parcel Map shall reference the recorded Covenant and Easement Agreement that includes reciprocal nonexclusive utility easements for utility and sewer service and maintenance related thereto over all areas where utilities and sewer facilities currently exist on the 12.162-acre property. ATTACHMENT B PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Chris Magnusson DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Planner Environment AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: January 15, 2003 901 San Antonio Road [02-PM-02]: Request by Kier & Wright on behalf of the Campus for Jewish Life to subdivide a 12.162-acre parcel with an existing 5-story building into two parcels. Parcel one will be 4 acres, on which the existing building will remain, and parcel two will be 8.162 acres. Environmental Assessment: Categorically exempt from the California Environmenta! Quality Act per section 15315--Minor Land Divisions. Zone District: GM. RECOM~ENDATION Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend approval of the Tentative Map to the City Council, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Attachment A). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site and Project Information The project consists of subdividing a single 12.162-acre parcel into two newly configured parcels. Parcel One would equal 4.00 acres in size and Parcel Two would equal 8.162 acres. The 12.162-acre site is located in the General Manufacturing (GM) zone district and is designated for Light Industrial land use in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The site is also located in the San Antonio/Bayshore Corridor Employment District and lies adjacent to Space Systems/Loral, the neighboring property to the north and to the east across Fabian Way. The site has frontage on East Charleston Road, Fabian Way, and San Antonio Road. The property contains mature vegetation and a 257,980 square foot, five-story office building which is currently vacant. The building and a portion of the parking lot would remain on Parcel One, until such time as the unoccupied building is demolished and the site is further improved. The balance of the parking area would remain on Parcel Two, until such time as the unoccupied building on Parcel One is demolished and the parcel is re-developed. The site development regulations of the GM zone district do not designate minimum requirements for site area, lot width and depth, yard areas, or lot coverage. The site does not abut any residential or Planned Community (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 agreement restricting further development on the two parcels while the existing building stands. The agreement would also assure the maintenance of legally required parking and utility services. Project History In 2002, Sun Microsystems sold its office building at this location to the Campus for Jewish Life (CJL), a non-profit organization that provides educational and recreational services. The site, which has an unoccupied five-story office building and parking facilities, is intended as the future home for the CJL, which in cooperation with Bridge Urban Infill Land Development, LLC (BUILD), intends to develop community recreational .and educational uses as well as housing on the site. The subdivision, without affecting or implementing site improvements of any kind, is proposed at this time to allow the two organizations to segregate their ownership interests while continuing to develop the site cooperatively. L~timately, the CJL plans to sell Parcel One to BUILD and retain Parcel Two for its own use. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan ¯ The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, both with respect to the Light Industrial land use category and adherence to the following policies of the Land Use and Community Design and Natural Environment Elements: Policy L-l: The Comprehensive Plan indicates to continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The existing parcel is located within the urban growth boundary and its subdivision is consistent with this policy by continuing the reuse of land within this area. Policy L-46: The Comprehensive Plan states to maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diverse business and light industrial districts. The project site lies within the San Antonio RoadfBayshore Corridor Employment District. The proposed subdivision is a precursor for future land use changes that would provide a more diverse mix of services and activities. Utilizing the project site for housing and community services would benefit and add to the diversity of the employment district, as it is already situated in an area served by multi-modal transportation. The opportunity exists for future commercial and residential users to access San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road, which currently provide all bus services for connections to local and regional areas and to other transportation modes. In addition, sidewalk bike paths exist along these roads and connect to on-street bike lanes on Fabian Way and other local streets. Although future site uses other than light industrial may be considered, the existing land use designation and the uses allowed under the zone district are unaffected by this subdivision. Private educational facilities and multiple-family residential housing are permitted uses in the GM zone district. Policy L-60: The Comprehensive Plan indicates to protect Palo AIto’s archaeological resources, as the site is located in an area of Moderate Sensitivity. The proposed subdivision does not Cio~ of Palo Alto Page 2 involve any disruption to the existing uses and facilities on site. Therefore, any future deveiopment proposal will be required to consider the presence of archaeological resources. Policy N-18: Th~ Comprehensive Plan notes to protect PaIo AIto’s groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses. Contaminated soil and groundwater is present on site, as a result of historic operations from the Ford Aerospace Company. However, this subdivision will neither alter the existing conditions nor present any new significant effect to the environment. Zoning Ordinance Compliance The proposed subdivision, with the exception of the floor area ratio (FAR) on Parcel One, is in compliance with the site development regulations of the GM District (PAMC 18.55.050). To keep the FAR on the overall site within code limits, the CJL and BUILD have a~eed to record a Covenant and Easement Agreement 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 services are maintained; and (d) there is no increase in floor area on either parcel. The Director of Planning and Community Environment is authorized under existing code to approve required parking on a separate parcel that is within 500 feet of Parcel One (PAMC 18.83.120 [g]). Parcel Two would be within this required distance. In essence, there would be no change to the on-site use, building, tota! number of parking spaces available, and vehicle circulation, as a result of the proposed subdivision. Subdivision Ordinance Compliance The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance, in regard to Tentative Map requirements (PAMC 21.12) and design (PAMC 21.20). However, because the site is over five acres in size, the minor subdivision cannot be processed administratively through the Director of Planning and Community Environment and requires review by the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council approval (PAMC 21.08.020). SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Floor Area Ratio The site development regulations of the GM zone district allow a maximum floor area ratio of up to 0.5 to 1 for nonresidential uses (PAMC 18.55.050[g][1]). Subdivision of the existing 12.162- acre parcel into two new parcels will create a non-conforming facility on the new Parcel One, in that the four-acre parcel’s floor area ratio would be approximately 1.5 to 1, given the existing building. However, development restrictions under a Covenant and Easement Agreement, to be recorded as part of the subdivision approval, will prevent any intensification of development beyond that permitted in the zoning ordinance. As a result, no additional development on both newly created parcels would be allowed until the excess floor area is eliminated, either by demolition or by rezoning. In the absence of such a covenant, an application for exception (under PAMC 21.32.010) would have been required and included under the project description and staff recommendation for consideration of approval to allow the subdivision of a parcel containing a building over the maximum allowable floor area ratio. Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 3 Non-Access Easement Since 1957, a Non-Access Easement prohibiting access to the site from San Antonio Road has been in effect, even though a right-turn lane and driveway on San Antonio Road has existed for some time. The Transportation Division recommends modifying the Non-Access Easement by deletion of the driveway 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 width of the driveway for such purpose. Existin~ Utilities Through the Covenant and Easement Agreement, the CJL and BUILD have agreed to grant to each other reciprocal nonexclusive utility easements for utility and sewer service (and maintenance related thereto) over 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 connections, and water, fire, irrigation, and gas services from street mains to the parcel. A condition of approval has been required to reference this recorded agreement on the Parcel Map that is required for subsequent review and approval. Future Development Any 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) guidelines. The subdivision, without affecting or implementing site improvements of any kind, is proposed at this time to allow each organization (i.e., CJL and BUILD) 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 right to require further adjustments in the lot line between the parcels if appropriate for future development of either site. PUBLIC NOTICE Public Notice of the Planning Commission hearing for the proposed subdivision was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, a hearing notice card was mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Minor land divisions that conform to all zoning regulations are exempt from CEQA review under Section 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA requires review ofprojecfs, not simply individual permits or approvals. CJL and BUILD intend to redevelop the site and have requested a preliminary, non-binding review by the City Council of their objectives. The preliminary review, which is non-binding, is intended to identify significant issues and provide early public information. It precedes CEQA review. As conditioned, the proposed subdivision conforms to local zoning regulations, will not have a significant effect on the environment, and will not pre- determine subsequent land use decision for the site. Therefore, finding the Tentative Map categorically exempt from CEQA is appropriate. ¯CiU of Palo Alto Page 4 NEXT STEPS Following review by the Planning and Transportation Commission, the application will be heard by the City Counci! 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 will be made by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. ATTA CHM~ENTS~XHIB ITS Attachment A. Attachment B. Recommended Conditions of Approval Tentative Map (Commission Members Only) COURTESY COPIES Margaret Sloan, 1100 Alma Street, Ste. 210, Menlo Park, CA 94025-3392 Gene Golobic, 3350 Scott Boulevard, Santa Clara, CA. 95054 James Baer, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 h-is Gai, 5150 E1 Camino Real, Ste. ll-D, Los Altos, CA 94022 Joseph McCarthy, One Hawthorne Street, Ste. 400, San Francisco, CA 94105-3957 Karen Groseclose, 3825 Fabian Way, M/S E.32, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4604 Stephen Shoji, 3825 Fabian Way, M/S E.32, Pa!o Alto, CA 94303-4604 Prepared by:Chris Magnusson Planner Reviewed by:Amy French, AICP Manager of Current Planning Department/Division Head Approval: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 5 ATTACHMENT C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 :MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LPqE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26==: January l& 2003 SPECIAL MEETING -7:O0 PM Cio, Council Conference Room Civic Center; ist Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue PaIo Alto, California 94301 EXCERPT of 1115/03 minutes of the Planning and Transportation Commission ROLL CALL: 7.’05 PM Commissioners: Annette Bialson, Chair Michael Griffin, Vice-Chair Karen Holman Patrick Butt Bonnie Packet Plo, llis Casb’eI Joseph Bellomo AGENDIZED ITEMS: Staff." Steve EmsIie, Planning Director Amy French, Current Planning Manager Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney Steven Tumzet; Planner Chris Magnusson, Planner Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official Zariah. Betten, Executive Secretat3, 1. 901 San Antonio Avenue 2. 800 High Street ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available flom the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes Chair Bialson: I would like to call this meeting to order. Would the secretary please call roll. Thank you. The first item on our agenda is Oral Communications. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of 3 minutes per sPeaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Commission reserves the right to limit the Oral Communications period to 15 minutes. I have no cards so I’ll close Oral Communications. City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless 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 will be one agenda change under the New Business public hearings. Item #2, with regard to 901 San Antonio Avenue will be h~ard prior to the 800 High Street matter. UNFINISHED BUSINESS. Public Hearings: None. Other Items: 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 12.162-acre parcel with an existing 5-story building into two parcels. Parcel one will be 4 acres, on which the existing building will remain, and parcel two will be 8.162 acres. Environmental Assessment: Categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 151315 .... Minor Land Divisions. File No: 02-PM-02. Zone District: GM. Chair Bialson: And taking no extra time, will Staff make their presentation with regard to 901 San Antonio Avenue, please. Wvnne Furth, Senior 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 Magnusson, Planner: Good evening, Chair Bialson, Members of the Commission. My name is Chris Magnusson. I represent City of Palo Alto Planning Division as a project planner assigned to this application. The application before you is the subdivision of the existing 12+- acre property at 901 San Antonio Road. The subdivision would create a property division in which there Would be two parcels. Parcel ! would contain the existing building and a portion of the parking area on site. It would be approximately 4 acres in size. Parcel 2 remaining 8+ acres will contain the balance of the existing parking area. The application is brought forth by the Campus for Jewish Life the current property owner in an effort to relocate its facilities to this site and share economic interest in the future redevelopment of this property with the Bridge Urban Infill Land Development Company. Ultimately, the Campus for Jewish Life plans to sell Parcel 1 to Bridge housing and retain Parcel 2 for its own use. City of PaIo Alto Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 The proposed subdivision complies with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the tentative map and design requirements of the subdivision ordinance, the site design 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 Agreement which does not allow any future development to occur [with that] bririg this situation into compliance. This agreement also accounts for access to the maintenance of existing utilities on site. In reference to CEQA, this minor subdivision is exempt from the Environmental review and that no development is proposed associated with the subdivision. There’s no creation of a sigaaificant effect upon the environment and its subdivision wil! 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 Transportation Commission and City Council. Otherwise, this application would have been processed administratively through 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 copy of. And I’d be happy to answer any 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 my 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. And I see that the Revised Conditions of Approval seem to address that in saying that the City retains the right 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 authority to move the lot line, then how do you deal with all that at the right timing? Ms. Furth: I think there are several levels of answers to your query. Because this is a lot division, a parcel map lot split, at the very beginning of a process that the property owner wishes 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 environmental review on the site, our goal here was two-fold. One was to make sure that the sites remain linked in terms of calculating the Floor Area Ratio because of the large existing building. That building can’t exist on one parcel without having parking and additional area on the other lots. The first thing we did was tying those two lots together essentially so that until the existing building comes down there won’t be further development on the site. City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 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 very good time 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 Agreement to that effect. You’ll also, of course, need to deal with the reality that you have two interested parties in this piece of land and I’m sure they’ll have views as to how they wish to use and share with but the City retains its planning authority. And because it’s a Covenant that went with the land that’s how we deal with the possible sale of this to a third party. Chair Bialson: Karen. Commissioner Holman: A couple of clarifications. Sometimes the may, shall, will words get to be confusing. So under the Revised Conditions of Approval says, "The City may require coordination and development.of access parking open space, etc." With the word ’shall be’, what would require it? With the word shall or is the word may the appropriate word? Ms. Furth: We’re just trying to give the City authority. We’re not lxying to direct the City as to what kind of outcome it comes to. So I think "may" is appropriate. Commissioner Holman: Okay, that’s one. And then just also for clarification on number 3, it says "Retains the authorily to require adjustment of the lot line." From my simple way of looking at this, I was thinking that adding the word ’reconfiguration/adjustment’ would clarify that it wouldn’t mean necessarily just a lateral move of the lot line and that the lot line actually might change from being a straight line. Ms. Furth: A lot line adjustment under subdivision law can be, you can stretch it any way you want. It simply means reallocating and moving the division somewhere within that larger site. So I think the existing term is clear in the context of subdivision law. Commissioner Holman: 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 planning that would be happening on this will be two parcels and for that to come back to the Planning and Transportation Commission. Is that the case or not? Steve Emslie. Planning Director: Yes, that is the case. The process that we’ve envisioned for this is to consider as you’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 parcel would have on the smqounding area. What we have envisioned is utilizing the pre-screening process. There’s a tentatively scheduled pre-screening in front of the City Council on January 27. There would be a public hearing so the public will be invited to give comments and testimony on that. We framed about 10 issues for the Council to give feedback on to policy issues and that would be used as a framework that we would proceed to do the master planning at this site and we would return to the Planning Commission to implement that policy direction as it relates to the redevelopment of this site. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Pat. City of PaIo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Burr: Wynn, would you clarify for us the rationale for going from the original recommended conditions for approval to the revised ones again? Ms. Furth: It’s essentially clarity. We worked on the technical documents themselves but we wanted it to be clear that the City’s intention here is to approve and the Staff’s recommendation here is to approve this !ot split so that this project can proceed with its two p.arties 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 progress, 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 Infi!l reconfiguration 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 vague idea of what the future development will be as long as the applicant is willing to say we’ll let you do that later. So we wanted it to be clear to you and to the public and, of course, to the applicant that we recommend that the City approve this lot split essentially for purposes of clarifying ownership but not to lose its power to plan the site as a whole. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. And then a second question for either yourself or other members of the Staff. 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. Furth: Not yet. Commissioner Burr: the?, raised. Perhaps a little later in the session, you could comment on the issues that Ms. Furth: Certainly. Chair Bialson: Any other questions from the Con~rnissioners? Michael. Vice-Chair Griffin: I’m wondering if we can have a brief discussion on the hazardous material aspects of this. Amy, if you are able to address that a little bit for us. Amy French. Cun’ent Planning Manager: We have not again received any data on the hazardous materials. I should say the underground [plume] that has developed under primarily the parking lot aspect of this site, the location is primarily the parking lot, the applicant would probably better be able to answer that question, so as we have not received an application we have not begun an environmental review. We don’t really have that data. It’s my understanding that it does not encompass the entire site, only a portion of the site. I’ll defer to the applicant to explain what they know. City of Palo Allo Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 !2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 39- 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Bialson: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I’m ready to make a motion unless Staff wants to respond. Chair Bialson: we want to give an opportunity for the public to speak and should the applicant wish to speak. Mr. Emslie: You’ve had a chance to review the statement that was distributed tonight. 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 aggegate basis would be considered and the condition that Wynn has revised and presented to you tonight gives us that authority so we do believe that the conditions as revised addresses the concerns in the letter presented. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Any other questions before the public? Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I think I’m still a little bit confused about my initial question. And that is, this lot split happened, let’s say whoever is the owner of Parcel 1, and there’s this Covenant that runs with the land that says the lot line is going to change. How do you have a legal description of the property? Ms. Furth: Clearly, this is not the same thing as having a lot split which gives 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 I’m sure is not the first choice of the applicant. But they need ~;o separate these parcels. These are BUILD 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 own particular needs as it raises funds and establishes its own entitlements to property. So they will not have simple alienable parcels as the result of this. They will have a parce! that can be sold but it’s a parcel that’s sold on the understanding that it’s part of a larger entity for planning purposes. Chair Bialson: Would the Commissioners like to have the applicant come before us to ask questions of that applicant? Does applicant wish tO speak to this? I know that the attorney for the applicant is present. Sandy Sloan: I’m Sandy Sloan, the applicant’s attorney and Lydia Tan from Bridge Housing is also here. The only specific question I think that Wynn didn’t answer was about the toxic condition of the site. And unfortunately, we don’t know the details. This site was cleaned up at the tirne that Sun bought it so it was up to commercial standards. The question now is residential standards for cleanliness are higher and so one of the reasons that Bridge has purchased or is drawing the line where it is, is the area where the housing is needs to be cleaner than the rest of it and that’s the cleaner part. But the studies, the details, the technical answers will come out in the Environmental Impact Report. Conmaissioner Burt: A small follow up question. Given that the toxic clean-up standards for the residential portion may be more restrictive, are there standards that apply to recreational areas that might be part of the other parcel that are equivalent to the residential standards or are those akin to the commercial standards? City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Ms. Sloan: I’m really not an expert in environmenta! toxic law but the standards for day care centers and if they 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 followed by Bob Moss. Barbara Platt. 490 E1 Capitan. Palo 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 new 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 elective board. We’d like to ask the subdivision of the 12.2-acre lot be granted only if aggregate impacts of the two subdivided lots are required to be reported. It is our understanding that only traffic impacts from an approved projects are required to be included in EIX’s. Therefore, by cutting the site into two projects with different development schedules, each projects traffic impacts could be considered separately. Separately, they could be understated. The combined scale of the JCC and Bridge House Corporation projects is huge and is likely to have significant impacts on Charleston Road traffic and surrounding neighborhoods. These ag~egate impacts must be considered in context of the full array of the development that wil! generate traffic on the Charleston’s school corridor over the next 5 to 10 years. We know that Hyatt simultaneously will be developing a project of similar proportion at the other end of Charleston. We know the full impact of the expansion of Challenger School has not yet been felt. The school does not expect to reach full capacity for four more years. Most of their student body is commuters from Mountain View and Sunnyvale. We expect the Elks decision to sell their property, which is zoned for housing will result in development, which will increase traffic on Charleston. We expect the Albertson’s expansion will draw more regional traffic..We expect that the numerous sites on E1 Camino near Charleston in the new housing site inventory also will generate new traffic. With all of these projects moving forward, a master plan for the Charleston’s school corridor is needed. Accurate reporting of impacts is necessary to make good information available for developmcn~ of a viable mas~er plan. Please do not subdivide withou~ requiring reporting of aggregate impacts of the two parts of the JCC/Bfidge Housing Corporation project. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Next speaker is Bob Moss and I have no other cards. Bob Moss. 4010 Orme. Palo Alto: You’ve got some questions about toxic and I may have some answers for you. I used to work on that site and as you know, I’m associated with the [Land Park] Association foundation, which for 13 years have been overseeing the two super fun sites, 1501 and 640 Page Mill Road. I’m also community co-chair of the Moffett Field Restoration Advisory Board, which is cleaning up Moffett field so I have quite a bit of experience with Cit3, of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 toxics. The only thing I’i1 tell you is that my history on this site is about 10 years out of date in terms of the actual concentrations. But let me give you some infoi-mation on what’s there and where it came from. The Staff Report is incorrect that says it came from Fort Aerospace. It did not. It came from 3 of these buildings over here on the site between Fabian and Charleston, spread across the street and is approximately, this is as I said 10 years old, approximately covered this area here at relatively low concentrations. Some primarily TCE and DCA and a little bit of freon. There was a small 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 levels allowed for something like that would be higher than they would be for residential. So the people who are working there in the office building were at relatively low risk. It was the lowest type of population. Children at daycare and people living in the residential area would be higher risk. As I say, as far as I know, my data is 10 years old, there wasn’t any concentration over here but it may have moved. Commissioner Butt: One brief question. If you know, Bob, you mentioned this as TCE contamination? Mr. Moss: That’s the most conm~on solvent that’s used in electronics. Commissioner Burr: But this is TCE contamination? M~’. Moss: Primarily. There’s about 5 or 6 components and it varies. The concentration varies from well 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 Butt: So I don’t know whether you know or whether Staff can provide this or whether it’s just we can wait until the final project comes in. But the solvent issue as I understand them are primarily water contamination issues on surface soils, they are going to volatilize. What becomes the public health issue? Mr. Moss: It’s kind of interesting because they just went through a big exercise at Moffett field for the housing that was proposed there. And surprisingly, even though the concentrations of toxics in the ground order are not that geat. They found fairly significant concentrations in the air, both in buildings like in the housing units and just basically in the ground. They’re still trying to figure out what to do with this. They reported the results without actually analyzing it because people are really concerned. And it was quite surprising that we got that much out. But you’re correct. Typically if you have it in the ground water, unless you have a method of transport from the ground water to you, you don’t have a problem. And in fact, we went through City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 !2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 this again with Moffett just last week. The people who are most exposed are construction workers because they will dig into the ground and actually expose the soil and the [papers]. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much, Bob. I have no other speaker cards so I’ll close the public hearing aspect. Are there any comments by Commissioners? Karen. MOTION Commissioner Holman: I must apologize for the public because I did not see any cards earlier so I jumped the gun on making a motion but I am prepared to make a motion. Given that there will be combined impacts on the two lots, I’m in support of Staff’s intention to consider this property as one development and, of course, am in support of all requirements of subdivision ordinance being met regarding open space, public space, circulation, etc. And so, thus, I move approval of the revised recommended Conditions of Approval for 901 San Antonio Road subdivision. Chair Bialson: Did you want to speak to the motion, more than you did? Commissioner Holman: I think I have. Chair Bialson: And we have a second? Phyllis. SECOND Commissioner Cassel: 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: Any other comments by Commissioners? Pat. Commissioner Burt: I have a follow up question 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 aggregate fashion? 1Vk. Emslie: The California Environmental Quality Act which governs how we analyze CEQA impacts of traffic and other environmental impacts, the speaker from Green Meadow is [inaudible] that CEQA requires that as a minimum that you must look at projects that are foreseeable and those projects have been defined as those which are active application pending. But that does not preclude the City from going further to analyze the impacts. For example, in the Ricky’s final EIR you will see that the impacts of the potential redevelopment of the Elks site will be analyzed and presented to you and the traffic analysis even though there is not an active application pending,-we just know that there is a foreseeable reasonable expectation that that property may re-develop. So through the Environmental Impact Report, you will be able to review and analyze the impact of reasonable and foreseeable future projects whether there’s an active application or not. I think in Palo Alto it’s fairly easy to identify the major re-development or development areas that have the potential to develop I would say a 10-year timeframe. I think Cit) of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 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? Mr. Emslie: The right answer is yes and I’ll ask Joe Kott to expand on the status of the Charleston school route corridor. Joe Kott, Chief Transportation Official: We’re engaged in a study of South Palo Alto school commuting in an area. wide basis but within that study, we have a focused analysis of the Charleston Road corridor. And we’ll look at pending developments and their likely impact particularly in bicycle and pedestrian safety. Chair Biatson: Joe. Commissioner Bellomo: 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 EIR’s on a development like this in response to an aggregate development? Mr. Emslie: It would be scripted together as an aggregate¯ Commissioner Bellomo: Even though this development might not proceed before one or the other, how would that be? 1Vk. Emslie: There’s a couple of different ways it would go. One way to deal with a phased project is a programmed EIR where you would look at the impacts of the whole program and then subsequent projects would either fall within that program EIR or need to do a subsequent EIR. But that’s the common approach to dealing with this type of issue. MOTION PASSED Chair Bialson: Any other comments? No. motion on the table, please say aye. I think we’re ready to vote. All those in favor of the Atl___2 Aye. Chair Bialson: Opposed? So that passes unanimously. do with regard to Item #2, 901 San Antonio. Thank you.That’s all that we need to ¯.. End of Excerpt... City of Palo Alto Page 10