Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-31 City Council a ager s Rep r TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: MARCH 31, 2003 CMR:181:03 2300 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD: APPLICATION BY A & P FAMILY INVESTMENTS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING OF A 1.84-ACRE PARCEL FROM SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO RESEARCH/OFFICE PARK LAND USE DESIGNATION AND FROM A PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE FOR A RESTAURANT TO THE LM(D)(3) ZONE (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH PARK WITH COMBINING DISTRICT). RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Council: recommend that the o o After reviewing public comments and response to public comments, adopt the proposed Negative Declaration for a re-designation of a 1.84-acre comer parcel at 2300 East Bayshore from Service Commercial to Research/Office Park land use and a rezoning of the parcel from PC for restaurant use to LM(D)(3) (Attachment B). Adopt the Resolution amending the land use map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to change the designation of 2300 East Bayshore from Service Commercial to Research/Office Park (Attachment C). Adopt the Ordinance to change the zoning classification of 2300 East Bayshore from PC2785 to LM(D)(3) zone (Attachment D). BACKGROUND At its meeting of December 9, 2002, the Council denied the applicant’s request for a new planned community zone for this and an adjacent site. It referred the staff-recommended LM(D)(3) rezoning and land use re-designation for this site back to the PTC for further CMR:181:03 Page 1 of 4 Consideration (see Council minutes, Attachment G). Before the matter was reconsidered by the PTC, the applicant submitted its own application for LM(D)(3) zoning and a Research/Office Park land use designation. As noted in the PTC report, the requested changes are consistent with the designation and zoning of the adjacent 3.82-acre parcel owned by the applicants and other parcels along the East Bayshore Road corridor. The attached environmental document analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the redevelopment of the site under the proposed zoning. No specific redevelopment proposal has been submitted. When one is, further site-specific environmental review may be required. A table presented to the PTC comparing the existing designations and development to the proposed designations and the potential for development on the subject property is provided as Attachment A to this report. The table includes permitted and conditionally permitted uses for the Council’s review. BOARD AND COMMISSION REVIEW On January 29, 2003, the PTC voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council approve a Negative Declaration and Resolution and Ordinance for an amended land use designation and rezoning of the 1.84-acre restaurant parcel to LM(D)(3) and Research/Office Park. Two members of the public spoke to the Commission regarding the item. The first speaker stated her belief that there was not enough information for the Commission to make a decision, noting that (1) there needs to be an adequate economic analysis, particularly of tax revenue impacts, and it is premature to preclude automobile dealership use before an economic analysis is prepared, (2) an office building would further exacerbate the existing housing shortage and an analysis should be done, and (3) an adequate traffic impacts analysis should be done since office uses would add trips to an already heavily impacted traffic intersection. The second speaker described (1) the need to maintain the area for diverse small businesses and support services, (2) the inconsistency of auto dealerships with the proposed land use desfgnation and the delay in the Zoning Ordinance Update in regards to incorporating auto dealerships in the LM(D)(3) zone, (3) the vacancies of office buildings in the area, (4) the conditional use permit being an obstacle to establishing restaurant, retail and other resident serving uses on LM zoned sites, (5) the advantage of leaving the Comprehensive Plan designation as Service Commercial consistent with established Embarcadero Road uses, (6) the intended office use as undesirable and the proposed land use and zoning changes as not being in the public interest, and (7) the irresponsibility of the PTC in making a determination to change the land use and zoning without an economic impact study. The staff report and minutes of the PTC meeting are attached (Attachments E and F). ALTERNATIVE TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION During its last review of a request for a Planned Community at this site, the Council expressed an interest in allowing auto sales use on this site. The LM zone does not allow auto sales. Auto sales could be added to the list of uses permitted in the LM zone as a part of the Zoning Ordinance update process. The current property owner is not interested in developing the parcel as an automobile dealership; it expects to propose CMR:181:03 Page 2 of 4 another office project. If the owner desires to temporarily provide a parking facility for auto dealers, the use can be conditionally permitted under an LM(D)(3) zoning district. As an alternative, Council may choose to approve the land use designation but deny the rezoning request, which would leave the site as a Planned Community and require an amendment for any change of use, expansion of use or redevelopment. Under this alternative, an applicant desiring to establish auto sales on the site, or any use other than restaurant use, could submit a request for an amendment to the existing Planned Community. Another alternative is to require the applicant to submit a development proposal for Council consideration in conjunction with the requested land use and zoning changes. RESOURCE IMPACTS The requested action would allow the property owner to redevelop this parcel and the adjacent one under the same LM(D)(3) zoning regulations. The property owner has not submitted a development plan meeting the proposed zoning district development standards. Development of a 24,000 square-foot office building on the existing restaurant parcel would yield, on a one-time basis, $360,000 in housing fees and $90,000 in community facilities fees. A 74,000 square-foot building on the combined parcels would yield, on a one-time basis, $1,110,000 in housing fees and $277,500 in community facilities fees. At such time as a development proposal is submitted with specified land uses, staff would revisit economic impacts for this site. Short of a business license tax, office and research facilities without sales offices contribute marginally to City resources and to its ability to provide services to these facilities. A new office building providing services would generate only minimal sales tax revenue for the City. Of the tax records reviewed, most recent businesses in the area have had very low or no sales tax. If a new office building were to include a sales operation, the City would realize revenues depending upon the nature of the business and sales volume. For example, a few furniture/equipment companies have been located in this area and they have reported significant sales taxes in positive economic cycles. If the complex housed a small retail operation such as a sandwich shop, it could generate approximately $5,000 annually. For each $1 million in additional assessed and moveable equipment value, the City would receive approximately $1,000 annually. Should a new office building worth $5.0 million more than the current building be constructed containing $1.5 million in new moveable equipment (assuming the current structure is razed), the City would receive $6,500 annually. The property is not being sold nor transferred, so there is no documentary transfer tax. Alternative Uses The existing building on the parcel is currently vacant, vacated by a restaurant use. The property owner has not found a new restaurant tenant. State law does not allow the City CMR:181:03 Page 3 of 4 to reveal sales tax revenues for specific businesses, but staff estimates a successful, upscale restaurant on this site could generate around $35,000 in annual sales taxes. However, it is unlikely a new restaurant would be established on this site, given the property owner’s preference and the closing of two restaurants in this area. Should zoning and owner interest permit, an auto dealership could be housed on this property. Staff estimates auto sales could generate as much as $250,000 to $300,000 in sales taxes annually. As noted, the property owner is not interested in establishing an automobile dealership on the property. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Table comparing existing and proposed designations Negative Declaration (previously reviewed, with comments by Council) Resolution amending Land Use Map Ordinance amending the Zoning Map Planning and Transportation Commission staff report, January 29, 2003 Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes of January 29, 2003 Minutes of City Council meeting of December 9, 2002 PREPARED BY: AMY Manager of Current DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: STEVE Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:"~. ~’/O_,-~ ~ EMIL½ HARRISON Assistant City Manager COURTESY COPIES Carol Jansen, 575 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Peery-Arrillaga attn. Dick Peery, 2560 Mission College Blvd. Suite 101, Santa Clara CA 95054 Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Angelica Voltera, P.O. Box 1724, Palo Alto, CA 94302 Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 CMR: 181:03 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT A Existing site/development conditions compared to staff recommendation and alternative 2300 East Bayshore Road Land use designation Zoning Site area Maximum floor area, Comprehensive Plan Maximum floor area, zone district Maximum site coverage Building Height Existing Conditions Service Commercial PC 2785 1.84 acres, (80,150 s.f.) 32,060 square feet (0.4:1 FAR) 8,400 s.f. (0.1:1 FAR) unless PC 2785 amended (up to 32,060 s.f. at a .4:1 FAR). 10% currently, amendment to PC required to increase One story Staff recommendation Research/Office Park LM(D)(3) 1.84 acres, 1 acre minimum required Up to 40,075 square feet (0.5:1 FAR) Up to 24,045 square feet (0.3:1 FAR) subject to Site and Design Review (this is 15,645 s.f. more than existing restaurant floor area) Up to 30% of site Up to 35 feet plus mechanical screen Alternative Research/Office Park PC 2785 1.84 acres, (80,150 s.f.) Up to 40,075 square feet (0.5:1 FAR) 8,400 s.f. (0.1:1 FAR) unless PC 2785 amended 10% currently, amendment to PC required to increase One story, amendment to PC required to increase Existing site/development conditions compared to staff recommendation and alternative 2300 East Bayshore Road Permitted Uses Conditionally Permitted Uses Existing Conditions Restaurant and bar No conditionally permitted uses prescribed in PC 2785 Staff recommendation Accessory facilities/activities, administrative office services, colleges/universities, day care centers/homes and residential care homes, home occupations, manufacturing, medical, professional and general business offices, private educational facilities, research and development, reverse vending machines, residential uses, warehousing and distribution. Auto service stations, eating and drinking services except drive-in and take-out, retail and financial services, private clubs, lodges or fraternal organizations, utility facilities, temporary parking facilities for up to 5 years, commercial recreation, recycling centers, churches and religious institutions Alternative Restaurant and bar. Amendment to Planned Community would be required to add or expand permitted use. No conditionally permitted uses prescribed in PC 2785, amendment would be required to add or expand permitted use Attachment B RE VISED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION CiO’ of Palo Alto 1.Project Title:Re-designate and rezone the 1.84 acre parcel at 2300 East Bayshore 2.Lead Agency Name and Address:CiD’ of Palo Alto, Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 3.Contact Person and Phone Number:Amy French, Senior Planner (650) 329-2336 4.Project Location:2300 East Bayshore 5.Application Numbers:02-ZC-03, 02-ETA-11, 02-CPA-01 6.Project Sponsors’ Names and Addresses:CiD" of Palo Alto 7.General Plan Designation:Service Commercial 8.Zoning District(s):PC (2785) 9.Project Description: (1) A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of a 1.84 acre parcel from "Service Commercial" to "ResearctUOffice Park," and (2) A Rezone of the 1.84 acre site to "LM(D)(3)" zone district from the existing Planned Communi~’ zone (PC2785). The existing PC zone (PC2785) allows an 8,400 square foot restaurant. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The subject property is located on the coruer of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road, across from Ming’s Restaurant. The site is also bounded by Bayshore Freeway, Watson Court, and by an LM(D)(3) zoned site under the same o~vnership as the subject propert3’, that is developed with four office buildings. The 1.84 acre (81,050 sq.ft.) parcel is developed with an 8,400 sq.ft. restaurant (currently vacant) having a floor area ratio (FAR) of. 1 : 1. This parcel was rezoned "Planned Community." (PC 2785) in 1974 to allow a restaurant and cocktail lounge. Prior to the adoption of PC 2785, the parcel was zoned L-M-D. The parcel now has a land use designation of"Service Commercial" as shown on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Map. The site currently has three driveways providing ingress and egress (two at East Bayshore Road and one at Watson Court) and there is a 65-foot wide public utilities easement running across the northerly portion of the site. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). None. 12. Public Review Period: In accordance with CEQA, the public review period for the original Negative Declaration ran from August 30 through September 18, 2002. This document was revised in response to comments received during the Planning and Transportation Commission hearing on September 4, and comments received the week of September 23, 2002, since the staff report to the Commission noted a public review period closing date of September 26. In addition, specific responses to comments are attached to this document. In addition, specific responses to comments are attached to this document. Since the revisions merely clarify and make insignificant modifications to the Negative Declaration, pursuant to CEQA section 15073.5, item 4, the revised document has not been re-circulated. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials X X Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation X Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there ~vill not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. X Community Environment EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4)"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identif.v the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identi~ and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identi~’ which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c)Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8)This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a)The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b)The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUFCeS Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista?1, 2, 3 X b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not 1, 2, 3 i X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 1, 2 X quality of the site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which 1, 2 would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?X II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) b) c) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1,3 (map L-9), 4 N/A X X X III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1, 2,3 X b) c) Violate an)’ air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 1, 2,3 1, 2,3 X X 4 d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1, 2 X concentrations? e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?1, 2 X IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)1, 3 b) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,3 c) d) e) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with an3, local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state conservation plan? 1,3 1,3 1,2, 3, 5 1,2,3 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to 15064.5?(map L-7) b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? 1,3 (map L-8) c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1,3 (L-4, L-8) X X X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Sources 1,3 (map L-S) Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact i Impact X VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: [ a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial see adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death below involving: i) 7 XRupture of a known.earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AIquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2, 3 (map N-10) ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?2, 3 (map N-S) X X iv) Landslides?3 (map X N-S) b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?1, 2 X c)XBe located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 2, 3 (map N-S), 8 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 2,3 (map N-S), 8 e) X X VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1, 2 X environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Issues and Supporting Information Sources b) c) d) e) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Sources 1, 2, 9 1,2 2,9 N/A Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? N/A g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1,2,3 (map N-7) h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wiidlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 1,3 (map N-7), 9 Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1, 2, 3,X requirements?11 b)X2, 3 (map N-2) c) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1,2 X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Sources 1, 2, 11 1, 2, 11 1, 2, 11 N/A 2, 3 (map N-6) Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 2, 3 (maps N-8, N- ~Less Than Significant ,.Impact No Impact X X X X X X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?3(maps X N-6, N- IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?N/A X 1,2,3 Xb) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 1, 2, 3 X natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 1, 3 X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Sources 1,3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) b) c) d) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 2,3 2, 3 2, 3 1,2 e)N/AFor a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would N/A X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)1, 2, 3 N/Ab) X Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the N/A X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public facilities? see below 9 1 1 13 13 Less Than Significant Impact X X X No Impact X X XIV. RECREATION 1,2 Xa) b) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? N/A XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the count)’ congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 2, 3, 8, 12 (maps T-7, T- 8) X c)Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X X X 10 Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,1, 2 X sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access?1, 2, 9 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?1, 2, 4 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 1, 2, 3 X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 2 X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)2 X c) d) e) g) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water 2, 11 drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 2, 10 2, 10 2, 3, 11 2, 11 X X X X 11 XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Xa)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1, 2, 3 1-13 X X SOURCE REFERENCES (Memoranda, analyses, reports, and assessments, noted below, pertain to project site): 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. !2. 13. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site. Project is not a development proposal. Any development project meeting LMD(3) zoning requirements would be required to undergo a separate site specific environmental review process. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. Parenthetical references indicate maps found in the Comprehensive Plan. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance). Certified Arborist’s Tree Assessment prepared by Ian Geddes Tree Care, dated August 11, 2000. No reference. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Environmental Assessment Worksheet and documentation submitted for Peery-Arrillaga Project (Draft Traffic Analysis by Fehr and Peers Associates, Inc dated March 2002) City. of Palo Alto, Fire Department memorandum. Ci~, of Palo Alto, Utilities Engineering Division memorandum. City of Palo Alto, Public Works Department memorandum. City of Palo Alto, Transportation Division memorandum. Parks and Community Facilities Impact Fee Study by DMG-Maximus, dated September 18, 2001 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I. Aesthetics In accordance.with CEQA, any future redevelopment plan would be reviewed under the category of aesthetics, to ensure new construction would be appropriate and compatible with the site and surrounding deve!opment, and any site improvements would be harmonious and appropriate to any new building. Any redevelopment under the proposed LM(D)(3) zone would be required to meet the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.64, Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts, in addition to meeting the development standards of the proposed LM(D)(3) zone. Section 18.64.030 (a)(2)(A) requires the elimination of glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the development. Information regarding lighting is required with any project application. Mitigation Measures: None required. 12 II.Agriculture Resources The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland," "Unique Farmland," or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None required. ItI. Air Quality It is not anticipated that a redevelopment project on the 1.84 acre parcel under the proposed LM(D)(3) zoning would be of a scale or use as to effect any regional air quality plan or standards, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Any redevelopment proposal would be evaluated in a project-specific environmental analysis for potential effects on air quality. The analysis could study the potential impacts of new construction on the site, any increase in emissions due to new construction on the site and any cumulative effects from the project, given recent and future projects in the area. Any redevelopment proposal on the parcel would not be allowed to generate substantial pollutant concentrations. Mitigation Measures: None required. IV. Biological Resources No endangered, threatened, or special status animal or plant species have been identified at this site. There is no redevelopment proposed with the rezoning and amendment to the land use designation. Any redevelopment project would be evaluated for potential effects on biological resources in a separate, site-specific environmental document. Mitigation Measures: None required. V. Cultural Resources The site is currently developed with a restaurant building, parking facilities and landscaping. The site has been disturbed as a part of the existing development. There are no known cultural resources on the site. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the project site is located within an Archaeological Resource Area of moderate sensitivity. There is no redevelopment proposed with the rezoning and amendment to the land use designation. Any redevelopment project would be evaluated for potential effects on any cultural resources in a separate, site-specific environmental document.Standard mitigation measures would be required for any redevelopment project to ensure that Public Resources Code, Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines are followed. Mitigation Measures: None required. VI. Geology and Soils There is no redevelopment proposed with the rezoning and amendment to the land use designation. Any redevelopment project would be evaluated for potential effects on the environment in a separate, site-specific environmental document. Mitigation Measures: None required VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials There is no redevelopment proposed with the rezoning and amendment to the land use designation. Any redevelopment project would be evaluated for potential effects on the environment in a separate, site-specific environmental document. Mitigation Measures: None required. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality Any proposed development project would need to comply with City, State and Federal standards pertaining to water quality, and waste discharge, and storm water run-off, tt is not anticipated that development under the proposed LM(D)(3) zone would substantially deplete groundwater supplies, nor substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. There is no redevelopment proposed with the rezoning and amendment to the land use designation. Any redevelopment project would be evaluated for potential effects on the environment in a separate, site-specific environmental document. Mitigation Measures: None required. 13 IX. Land Use and Planning The existing Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this site is "Service Commercial" and the site is developed with an 8,400 square foot restaurant building permitted under Planned Community PC2785. At the time the existing PC zone and Service Commercial land use designation were adopted for the parcel, it was zoned LMD. The parcel’s existing zoning and land use designation were not adopted "for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect." They were adopted to allow a restaurant. A change in the Comprehensive Plan land use designation is proposed. The proposed land use designation does not conflict with the policies of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed LM(D)(3) zoning is consistent with the proposed land use designation. The proposed Comprehensive Plan land use designation and proposed zoning are consistent with those of the adjacent property under the same ownership. The current restaurant use of the site would still be allowed under the Research!Office Park land use designation, but would become a legal non-conforming use under the proposed LM~)(3) designation. If the restaurant remains vacant for one year after Council action to approve the LM(D)(3) zoning, a Conditional Use Permit would be required to allow a restaurant use. The existing "Service Commercial" land use designation would allow the City to approve non-residential floor area up to 32,060 square feet (an FAR of.4:1, or a 23,660 square feet increase in floor area). An amendment to PC2785 would be required, via discretionary review by the City’s .Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, in conjunction with a site and project specific environmental analysis. Under the proposed land use plan designation and LM(D)(3) zoning, up to 24,045 square feet of floor area (an FAR of .3:1, or a 15,645 square feet increase in floor area) could be permitted, subject to a site and project specific environmental analysis and the City’s discretionary Site and Design Review process, a desig-n review by the City’s Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council. A change to the "Research/Office Park" land use designation reduces the commercial floor area that could be approved under discretionary review by the City by 8,105 square feet. The City Council may approve the "Research/Office Park" land use designation but not approve the rezoning to LM(D)(3) at the same time, in favor of retaining the existing PC zoning of the 1.84 acre parcel unti! such time as a redevelopment proposal meeting LM(D)(3) development standards is submitted for discretionary review. Mitigation Measures: None required. X. Mineral Resources The project will not impact "known mineral or locally-important mineral resources. Mitigation Measures: None required. XI. Noise There is no redevelopment proposed with the rezoning and amendment to the land use designation. Any redevelopment project would be evaluated for potential effects on the environment in a separate, site-specific environmental document. Any redevelopment on the site would be required to comply with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC. Mitigation Measures: None required. XII. Population and Housing The project is a rezoning and re-designation of the 1.84 acre parcel’s land use. The project does not include a proposal for a development on the site. Alternative uses to office use could be proposed under the LM(D)(3) zone. Any redevelopment proposal would include any anticipated increase in the number of employees on the site. Housing impact fees would be required for any increase in commercial floor area that could be permitted via discretionary review of a project meeting the proposed LM(D)(3) zoning regulations. A separate, project specific environmental analysis for any redevelopment of the site would include a discussion of potential impacts upon the jobs!housing imbalance. Any redevelopment project would be analyzed with the correct formulas for the anticipated number of employees and using information about actual employee numbers when the restaurant use was active. The standard estimate used by City stafffor jobs created by development is 4 jobs per 1,000 square feet of commercial area. With this formula, the restaurant when active, would have had approximately 32 employees, whereas the maximum potential commercial floor area on the same site under the proposed 14 LM(D)(3) zoning (24,045 sq.ft.) would potentially have 96 employees. potential for a 64-employee increase on the restaurant site. Mitigation Measures: None required. Therefore, theoretically, the Alternate Project includes the XIII. Public Services Fire The proposed rezoning and new land use designation would not impact fire service to the existing office/research park. The site is not located in a high fire hazard area. Police The proposed rezoning and new land use designation would not result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities. Schools Any redevelopment project on the parcel would be subject to standard school impact fees. Parks and public facilities Facilities fees would be required for any redevelopment project on the parcel. XIV. Recreation The proposed rezoning and land use designation would not impact recreation. Any redevelopment project would be analyzed to determine any aniticipate increase in use of the baylands recreational area by employees. XV. Transportation!Traffic The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designation and rezoning of the 1.84 acre parcel would not result in a transportation/traffic impact. Any redevelopment project on the site would be subject to discretionary design review and site specific environmental analysis. Mitigation Measures: None required. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems The proposed rezoning and land use re-desig-nation would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems or use resources in a wastefu! or inefficient manner. Mitigation Measures: None required. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed rezoning and land use designation amendment, associated with a potential for increased floor area on the site but not an actual development project, will not substantially degrade the surrounding environment, impact wildlife species or their habitat, or eliminate important examples of cultural history, or pre-history. The project would create less than significant impacts on the quality of the environment. The Alternate Project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with past, current and probable future projects, because (1) the proposed zoning and land use designation are consistent with the previous zoning and land use designation on the parcel, (2) the potential increase in building area on the parcel under the proposed LM(D)(3) zoning is only 15,645 square feet and any development proposal on the 1.84 acre parcel would require a separate, site-specific environmental review to determine impacts from the project and any cumulative impacts due to past, current and probable future projects, and (3) the proposal for redevelopment of the Edgewood Plaza is not yet a current project and is not yet considered a probable future project, given the community’s response to preliminary, plans, so there are no current projects in the City, of Palo Alto in the vicinity of the 1.84 acre parcel. 15 Attachment C RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ~ENDiNG THE LAND USE HAP OF THE PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO C~GE THE DESIGNATION OF A 1.84 ACRE PARCEL AT 2300 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD FROM "SERVICE CO!~V~RCIAL’’ TO "RESEARCH/OFFICE WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission ("Commission"), after a duly noticed public hearing on January 29, 2003, has recommended that the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan be amended to change the designation of 2300 East Bayshore Road, a 1.84 acre parce!, from "Service Commercial" to "Research/Office Park"; and ¼~EREAS, the Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on Apri! 14,. 2003, and has reviewed the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and all other relevant information, including staff reports,and al! testimony, written and ora!, presented on the matter. NOW, THEREFORE, the Counci! of the City of Pa!o Alto does hereby _RESOLVE, as follows: SECTION !. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare of Pa!o Alto and the region require an amendment to the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2. SECTION 2. The Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Pa!o Alto Comprehensive Plan to designate 2300 East Bayshore, a 1.84 acre parce!, "Research/Office Park", as shown on Exhibit "i" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective on the 31st day after is adoption. This delayed effective date is intended and shall be construed to provide a sufficient period of time between adoption of the resolution and its effective date to allow a com_mlete and exclusive opportunity for the exercise of the referendum power pursu&nt to the Charter of the City of Pa!o Alto and the Constitution of the State of California. A referendum petition filed after the effective date shal! be rejected as untimely. 030326 syn 0091142 SECTION 4. use designation environment. The Council hereby finds that this new land wil! have no significant effect on the INTRODUCED AI~ PASSED: AYES: NOES: .<BSTENTiONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 030326 syn 009! 142 PF EXHIBIT LM(D)(3) PC-3350 Pc! 1643 1752 Park 1889 The City of Palo Alto ect: This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS2300 East Bayshore Rd 1.84 acres 03-CPA-01 and 03-ZC-01 ~(Formerly, 02-CPA-01 and 02-Z0-03) Application by A&P Family Investments to change the Land Use Designation from Service Commercial to Research/Office Park and, the zoning, from PC-2785 to O’500’LM(D)(3/. Attachment D ORDINANCE ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING HAP OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO CRLhNGE THE DESIGNATION OF A !. 84 ACRE P~_RCEL AT 2300 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD FROM "PLANNED CO~MIINITY" TO LM(D)(3)"LIMITED INDUSTRIAL WITH C0_~BINiNG DISTRICTS" The Counci! o~ the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION !. The City Council finds as follows: A.The Planning and Transportation Commission "Commission"), after a duly noticed public hearing on january 29, 2003, has recommended that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("Counci!") rezone the 1.84 acre site at 2300 East Bayshore Road to "Limited Industria! with Combining Districts", LM(D) (3). B.The Council recognizes that restaurant use of the 1.84 acre parcel appears to be no longer economically viable in that the failure of Scott’s Seafood at this site (and relative success at Town and Country Shopping Center) indicates that restaurant use, in this case, did not benefit wel! enough from the em_mloyment center. C.The Council has received the facts presented at the public hearing, including public testimony and reports and recommendations from the director of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff. D.The Counci! finds that a change of district boundaries to LH(D) (3) would be in accord with the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal code, in that before the adoption of Planned Community Zone PC 2785,the designation on the parcel was LM(D); the site meets the minimum area re_cglirement for the District; the site is adjacent to other LH(D) (3) parcels, and LH(D) (3) uses are appropriate in this location. E.The Council finds that rezoning the parce! to the LM(D) (3) zone is in accord with the Pa!o Alto Comprehensive Plan, amended pursuant to the accompanying resolution, in that the East Bayshore Emp!oyment District is primarily zoned LH(D) (3). 030326 syn 0091141 F.The Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on April 14, 2003, and has reviewed the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and all other relevant information, including staff reports, and al! testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter. SECTION 2. The Counci! hereby amends the Zoning Hap of the City of Pa!o Alto to place 2300 East Bayshore, a 1.84 acre parcel, within the "Limited industria! with Combining Districts, LH(D) (3) Zone. " ~’ ~ch!s rezoningSECTION 3. The Counci! hereby z!nQs that ~ ’ wil! have no significant effect on the enviror~ent and approves the Negative Declaration. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective upon the nh_rcy-~mrst (31s~) day after its passage and adoption INTRODUCED PASSED: AYES: NOES: .~BSTENT!ONS: R~SENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor City Hanager Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment 030326 syn 0091141 Attachment E PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Amy French, Manager of Current Planning DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment DATE: SUBJECT: January 29, 2003 2300 East Bayshore Road: Application by A & P Family Investments for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning of a 1.84-acre parcel to the "Research/Office Park" and LM(D)(3) zone designations. File Nos: 03-CPA-01 and 03-ZC-01 (Formerly 02- CPA-01, 02-ZC-03.) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend the City Council adopt the revised Negative Declaration and approve the requested rezoning and land use designation of the 1.84-acre parcel to "LM(D)(3)" and "Research/Office Park." BACKGROUND On September 4, 2002, the Planning and Transportation Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council deny A & P Family Investments’ Planned Community project (02-PC-01) on a 5.66 acre site that included the 1.84 acre parcel. On December 9, 2002, the City Council accepted the recommendation and voted 7-2 to deny the PC project. The Commission also voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration (02- EIA-11) and the LM(D)(3) rezoning and Research!Office Park land use designation for the 1.84-acre restaurant parcel, as proposed by staff. At their meeting, the Council discussed the staff’s and Commission’s proposal for rezoning and land use designation, but referred the proposal back to the Commission for further consideration. 2300 East Bayshore Road Page 1 The Council asked the Commission to review the potential for rezoning the site to allow housing, mixed use, and automobile sales. The Council also directed staff to explore ways to promote automobile dealers as a part of the Zoning Ordinance update process. The applicant submitted an application on January 2, 2003, for rezoning to LM(D)(3) and Research/Office Park land use designation for the 1.84 acre parcel. The applicant has not submitted redevelopment plans. Project History The project is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Research/Office Park and rezoning to LM(D)(3), now proposed by A&P Family Investments, for the 1.84 acre restaurant parcel. Approval of the proposed land use and zoning would allow the applicant to submit an application for a redevelopment project up to 24,315 square feet of office space or other commercial or residential on the 1.84 acre site. The maximum floor area ratio that could be approved by Council via Site and Design Review would be 0.3:1. Approval of the project would also allow the applicant to submit an application for redevelopment of the site in conjunction with the adjoining 3.82 acre site, also zoned LM(D)(3). Any redevelopment project would be subject to the Site and Design Review process. Site Information The subject property is a 1.84 acre parcel (81,050 square feet) located on the comer of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road, across from Ming’s Restaurant. Zhe property is bounded to the south by Watson Court and to the west by a developed 3.82 acre LM(D)(3) zoned site also owned by the applicant. The parcel was created in 1974, when the City Council approved a parcel map to subdivide a 7.9 acre parcel zoned LMD into three parcels. Developed with an 8,40G sq.ft, restaurant (currently vacant) having an FAR of. 1:1, this parcel was rezoned "Planned Community" (PC 2785) in 1974 to allow a restaurant and cocktail lounge. The parcel has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of"Service Commercial," which allows a non-residential FAR of up to 0.4:1, though office uses are limited by the related zoning districts to 5,000 square feet per site. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan Amendment The process for this amendment is outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 19, "Master Plan". The process requires at least one public hearing each by the Commission and the City Council. As noted, the Council directed staff to bring the item back to the Planning and Transportation Commission to explore other land uses in conjunction with the Zoning Ordinance Update. The amendment is now a proposal by A&P Family Investments in conjunction with a rezone request to LM(D)(3), rather than a proposal by staff. As noted, the applicant is not interested in redeveloping the site for housing, mixed use or automotive services. 2300 East Bayshore Road Page 2 The land use category that would be most appropriate to encourage a mixed-use redevelopment would be the Mixed Use category. However, this designation is geared toward establishing a high quality pedestrian oriented street environment that would discourage automotive services. Staff is of the opi~ ~:~n that this would be an inappropriate land use designation for this vehicular-oriented site. The proposed Research!Office Park designation would be consistent with the land use designation on the adjacent parcels to the north, west and south. This designation would allow residential and mixed uses and commercial services as well as office and research uses. The proposed land use designation does not include, nor preclude "automotive services" use. "Research/Office Park" is defined as: "Office, research, and manufacturing establishments whose operations are buffered fi’om adjacent residential uses... Other uses that may be included are educational institutions and child care facilities. " Compatible commercial service uses such as banks and restaurants, and residential or mixed uses that would benefit fi’om the proximiO’ to employment centers, will also be allowed. Additional uses, including retail se~wices, restaurants, commercial recreation, churches, and private clubs may also be located in Research/Office Park areas, but only if they are found to be compatible with the surrounding area through the conditional use permit process. " Change the Zone to LM(D)(3) As noted, the City Council expressed a desire for the Commission to consider a zone that would allow housing, mixed use and automobile dealerships. The LM(D)(3) zone allows single-family and multi-family housing. The LM(D)(3) zone also allows for mixed-use projects. The LM(D)(3) zone conditionally allows support services for motor vehicles, such as automobile service stations and retail services including the sale of bicycles, mopeds and automotive parts and accessories. The LM zone does not allow automobile dealerships as permitted or conditional uses. However, following Council discussion, staff proposes to add this use in the Zoning Ordinance Update process. Chapter t8.60 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code describes the purposes of the LM zone as follows: "The LM limited industrial/)’esearch park district is designed to create and maintain sites for a limited group qf professional, administrative, research and manufacturing uses which may have unusual requirements for space, light, and air, and desire sites in an industrial/research park environment. Combining district provisions are provided to adapt the site use and development regulations to meet the requirements of uses desiring smaller sites, or uses which can accommodate to large sites with uneven terrain. The LM district is primarily 2300 East Bayshore Road Page 3 intended for application to sites identified for research/office park use by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. " Staff supports the change to the LM(D)(3) zone district because the LM(D)(3) zone is the same zone as the adjacent 3.82 acre parcel and the other East Bayshore Road corridor properties. The parcel meets the minimum site area requirement. The LM(D)(3) zone would allow a floor area ratio of 0.3:1 and a site coverage of 30% (which is less than the maximums allowed in a C-S zone following the existing land use designation). DISCUSSION Comprehensive Plan Findings for a Comprehensive Plan amendment are set forth in PAMC Chapter 19: 1. "When changed conditions or further studies by the commission require, the commission may amend, extend, or add to all or part of the master or general plan... [Section 65505]" 2."When it deems it to be for the public interest, the legislative body may change or add to all or part of an adopted master or genera! plan. [Section 65511]" Attachment C, attached to this report, is a Resolution for the City Council that contains draft findings in support of the requested change to "Research/Office Park". Zone Change Attachment D, attached to this report, is an Ordinance for the City Council that contains draft findings in support of the requested change to LM(D)(3) zoning. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the staff proposed rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment is applicable to this project. The document was revised in response to public comments submitted during the Commission meeting and public review period. The revised document was included in the documents forwarded to the City Council. Staff recently modified the application numbers and project sponsor. The revised Negative Declaration is attached to this report as Attachment B. TIMELINE The tentative City Council date is March 10, 2003, to review the Negative Declaration, and applicant-proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning to LM(D)(3). ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Vicinity Map Negative Declaration Resolution for Approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance for Approval of Rezone to LM(D)(3) Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes of September 4, 2002 2300 East Bayshore Road Page 4 COURTESY COPIES Carol Jansen, 575 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Peery-Arrillaga atm. Dick Peery, 2560 Mission College Blvd. Suite 101, Santa Clara CA 95054 Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Angelica Volterra, PO Box 1724 Palo Alto, CA 94302 Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Prepared By:Amy French, Manager of Current Planning Department/Division Head Approval: ~te~e l~msli~, Director of Planning and Community Environment 2300 East Bayshore Road Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 !6 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 48 Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes of Meeting of January 29, 2003 Attachment F The Commission will take a ten-minute break at this point. Chair Bialson: Alright I think we are ready to continue this meeting. We are now on to Item number two under new business, 2300 East Bayshore Road. Does Staff care to make a presentation? 2300 East Bavshore Road*;..Application by A & P Family Investments for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning of a 1.84-acre parcel to the "Research/Office Park" land use and LM(D)(3) zoning designations. The property is currently zoned Planned Community (restaurant) and designated for service commercial uses in the Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared. File Nos: 03-CPA-O1 and 03-ZC-O1 (formerly 02- CPA-OI, 02-ZC-03.). SR : httn:/Twww.citv. ~)alo-alto.ca. z~icitvagenda/~ublish/~lanning- trans~)ortatiot~-meetings/] 4 7 4.pdf Ms. Amy French. Mana.~er, Current Planning: Yes. Good even!ng Chairman and Commissioners. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopt the revised negative declaration and approve the requested rezoning and land use designation of the 1.84 acre parcel to LM(D)(3) from a PC and to Research Office Park from Commercial Service. Staff finds justification for the Comp Plan amendment. The LM(D)(3) zone is appropriate given the surrounding parcels. It is consistent with the zoning district of the adjoining parcel and other office parcels along East Bayshore Road and would still allow for diversity of uses. The LM(D)(3) would limit the potential for development on the restaurant parcel to an FAR of .3:1 or 24,045 square feet. Now this is a potential floor area increase of 15,645 square feet. This is a potential. The actual or any development application would require review under the site and design process before the Planning Commission, ARB and City Council. One question that was asked earlier is the LM(D)(5) is this appropriate or not. In this case it is a 1.84 acre parcel, it does not meet the minimum acreage which is five acres for an LM(D)(5) parcel. It does. a!so not meet--the.minimum width or the minimum street side yard setback for the existing restaurant building. The original negative declaration came before you. The last time it was revised due to public comments made at the meeting and received in letters after the Planning Commission meeting and was presented to the City Council in a revised negative declaration with comments and response to comments. Please note that the project sponsor is no longer the City of Palo Alto as it was in the first review of this rezoning. The first time this came before you as a Planned Community request by the applicant, A& P Family Investments. Staff came forward with an alternate proposal which was proposed by Staffto bring them down to an LM(D)(3) zone instead of what they were proposing which was a PC. That went to the City Council. The Council gave direction to the Planning Commission and Staff to go back and consider the various kinds of uses and what have you. They did deny the PC but had this come back to the Planning Commission. So basically this is here before you to once again discuss the proposal for LM(D)(3) and the Comp Plan amendment CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 23 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 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 to Research Office Park but this time it is an applicant driven request. That concludes my presentation. I am here for questions. Chair Bialson: Any questions by Commissioners prior to listening to the applicant? Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: Does that mean that the applicant has withdrawn the PC application and changed it to this application? Mr. Emslie: It was denied so that application is no longer pending. They have resubmitted an application for the rezoning you have before you. Chair Bialson: Yes, Michael? Commissioner Griffin: Is it often that we see a request for zoning change without having a project involved with the application at the same time? This one is a zoning change only there is no structure being propo.sed. Is that frequently done? Mr. Emslie: In general I wouldn’t say it is a rare occurrence. It often is done as a precursor to a project and it is often done in conjunction. We cannot require that a plan be submitted as a condition of the zoning. Wynne will tel! you that is classified as contract zoning and that is not legal to do. Contract zoning is essentially where you zone a piece of property based on a set of conditions that go above and beyond what the conditions of the zone itself would be. We need to look at this from a land use basis, we need to look at the compatibility of the zone in achieving our Comprehensive Plan objectives, objectives for the particular area and answer the question does it promote a reasonable implementation of both zoning and land use goals and objectives. Wynne can elaborate. Voluntarily an applicant can show us what a project is but we can’t make a zoning condition on a submittal of a specific project. Ms. Furth: Palo Alto is interesting in that a lot of big developments in town come in to the PC zone change. A PC zone is a sort of variety of a planned unit development. So you are looking at an entire project. It specifically includes the site and design review with the rezoning. That is not as common in other cities. It is certainly the case that any property owner has the right to come in and say, as this one is, I believe the Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning are inappropriate now. times have changed, a different catego¢~ of use would be appropriate. We analyze the environmental impacts on the assumption that the applicant will build as intensively as possible as permitted under the zoning. That creates the envelope that we analvze in providing information to you so that you can make a decision on whether you think this change is appropriate. This parcel is also interesting in that it is at a junction of two different stretches of zone. We have OR going one direction and Service Commercia! going the other. So it is in a position that it could be rezoned in either direction without creating anything that might be considered a spot zone. It will be contiguous whichever way you go. Chair Biatson: Thank you. The first card is from the applicant and then I will open the public hearing for that and for any other cards I receive. Jason Pea~,, you have ten minutes. CiO" qf Palo Alto Page 24 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 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mr. Jason Peal-v, Applicant. 1285 Wilson Street. Palo Alto: So this before you tonight, we are at the point where this is kind of our ’no mas’ presentation. We have been exhausted by the process. I have been working with various members of Staffand City Council. We have been trying since I believe August of 2000 so coming up on two and one-half years now of working on this project. We originally tried to submit a project as mentioned that was about 110,000 square feet, .46 FAR and recently on September 4 when we came back in front of you we still were applying for a 110,000 square foot project and the PC amendment. Staff recommended and Planning Commission approved 7-0 an LM(D)(3) designation for the combined parcel. Right now we have the 1.84 parcel which is still not zoned as LM(D)(3) as you know. It has a Service Commercial designation, which actually is a .4 density allowance. What we are sort of saying now is we are coming back and agreeing with the earlier recommendation by Staff that the entire parcel, the combined parcel, be LM(D)(3). It is a beautiful project. You had a question about the architecture and basically what we have done is simply reduced the prior project so it is a smaller size. The footprint is 16% and 16% is very small for a parcel like this. I think it is the smallest of any development we have done and we have a lot. We are not doing the underground parking anymore, which was a concern before. Since the density has been lowered so significantly we don’t need to do the underground parking any more. The landscaping is not compromised either. So the City Council sent it back. They wanted to consider that the 1.84 acre parcel be used as a car dealership or restaurant or mixed housing. We tried to get back up and explain that we don’t do that. We don’t do dealerships. We are not car dealerships. It seemed to me that they seemed to think it was their property and they wanted to come back and have Staff and you all come to the conclusion that it had to be a dealership. If we have a chain of ice cream stores no one is going to tell us that we have to make a hardware store on a piece of property that we own. We don’t do hardware stores. We don’t do dealerships. So at this point we appreciate your listening and we have exhausted the process and are conceding to agree with the prior recommendation, which Staff recommended and you all approved. Thank you for your time. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Hold on a second we have a question from a Commissioner. MichaeL. Commissioner Griffin: I may have misunderstood what you said. There was something about the combined parcels. As I understand it this is only for the smaller parcel of the two. Mr. Peara’: We are only talking about the LM(D)(3) designation for the smaller parcel. The other two are already LM(D)(3). This was also LM(D) before Scott’s Seafood. I believe in 1978 they took the space and we just want it to revert back to how it was. We believe there is precedent for that. Commissioner Griffin: Can we anticipate perhaps an intention on 5.’our part to come back and ask for a lot consolidation? Mr. Pearw: Yes. We are planning on consolidating the lots. Yes. They are contiguous and it is a rarity these days to be able to consolidate parcels such as this. Part of this whole process is consolidation of the parcels. CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 25 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22,, 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Griffin: So that is not being asked for this evening but eventually you will come back and ask for that if I understand you. Mr. Pear,,,: Are we not by nature of the LM(D)(3) adoption do we not have the right to combine the parcels at that point, Amy or Steve? Ms. French: There is no application pending for a parcel merge but it is I believe the applicant’s intention to merge the parcels. So they would come in with an application to merge the parcels. Mr. Emstie: That process would involve a Planning Commission hearing since this combined parcel would be over five acres. It would not be at the Public Works Director level but it would come as a public hearing item to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Griffin: We are going to hear that at some future time. Mr. Emslie: If they do indeed decide to move in that direction it would need to come to through this Commission and the Ci~I Council. Chair Bialson: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: They answered my question. Chair Bialson: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Pearv: I think Ms. Packer had a question. Commissioner Packer: Well this is sort of a follow up clarification from you and Staff. Assuming the zone change is granted and you come back for a consolidation then you would come back with your proposal which would go for site and design review and we would see it a third time under the site and design review process? Mr. Emslie: It is conceivable that you would do all those actions consecutively but the5’ also could be combined and done concurrently. Mr. Peary: The Architectural Review Board is going to look at the revised design as well. Mr. Emslie: Yes. Commissioner Holman: I have a question about the underground parking. You said that you decided to go away from that. Can you say specifically why? Mr. Peary: Yes. When we do a building we like to provide a lot of parking, four parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of space. Since we are only doing 70,000 instead of 1 !0,000 square feet we didn’t need the extra parking any more. It is very expensive to do the underground parking. The project we designed that we suggested before was very, costly and it is a big benefit to do the underground parking because it allows us to do more landscaping. Where some developers just put what they need to in parking on the surface level but the compromise in the landscaping standards. We never do that. We put the parking underground so we can have a massive amount City of Palo ,4 lto Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 t4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 of landscaping setbacks. In this case, since we reduced by 40,000 square feet the need for the parking is not there anymore so there is just not the need to go through the expensive process of building underground parking. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. The next card I have is from Angelica Volterra and you will have five minutes. Ms. An~etica Volterra. P.O. Box 1724. Palo Alto: Thank you very much. Good evening Commissioners. I want to start out by saying I listened to the video of the City Council meeting from the ninth of December, which ! also attended and at which I spoke. It was my understanding that this matter was not sent back to the Planning Commission it was actually referred to the Zoning Ordinance Update. So ! would appreciate some clarification of that initially. I believe that the Planning and Transportation Commission should deny this request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone. I do not believe that there is enough information available at the present time upon which to make decisions about the proposals. I do not believe that there has been adequate economic analysis of the effects of the proposed Comp Plan change from Service Commercial to Office Research including the possible loss of tax revenue and the possible exacerbation of the existing jobs/housing imbalance nor adequate analysis of potential traffic impacts. In his column in the December issue of CiO, Pages Mr. Benest expresses concern about the need to "preserve our economic base and protect our revenues," and cited concerns about the !oss of automobile dealerships in Palo Alto. At the City Council meeting of December 9 at which this matter was considered there was significant concern expressed about the economic implications of this proposal. Then Vice Mayor Mosser stated, "The Comp Plan says that we will look at the economic impacts of our land use decisions." At that same meeting Steve Emslie said, "If you are interested in preserving this as an auto sales site you would not want to implement the LM(D)(3) zoning or the RO Comp Plan designation for the balance of the site." At that same meeting Jim Birch said, "We are in difficult financial times and one of the things we don’t need more of is office buildings." He suggested an interim use such as an auto dealership in the coming years and even suggested that an interim use could be provided with the existing buildings. While compatible commercial service uses are allowed in a Research Office Park area additional uses including retail services, restaurants, etc. are allowed only if they are found to be compatible through the conditional use permit process. An automobile dealership would not be allowed currently if the proposed changes are made. Given the financial issues facing our City it may be premature to eliminate such a source of potential tax revenue before there is adequate analysis of the consequences of such a loss. The proposed Comp Plan Amendment and zone change would facilitate the eventual construction of an up to 74,000 square foot office building. The up to 74,000 square feet of office development allowed under the proposed project would generate from approximately 296 to 444 employees. This would further exacerbate the City’s already existing housing shortage. At the December 9 City Council meeting Council Member Kleinberg said, "We have to be vigilant about not adding more jobs without housing." Council Member Lytle referred to the, "outrageous jobs/housing imbalance in Palo Alto." Regarding traffic issues the Embarcadero-East Bayshore-Frontage Road intersection area as configured is dangerous with little opportunity for effective mitigation given its design. By CiO, of Palo Alto Page 2 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 direct observation in one study it was observed to operate at an LOS of F during the PM peak hour and that is without considering the impacts of IKEA, the University Circle development and a number of other already approved and in some cases constructed projects. IKEA alone wilt have enormous deleterious impacts on this intersection that have not been adequately addressed. The addition of any traffic particularly PM peak hour traffic at this site would be potentially significant. Office research uses would add AM and PM peak traffic to an already heavily impacted peak period intersection. Therefore I believe it is imperative before going forward with any changes to the area that there be adequate and thorough traffic analysis performed comparing the current zoning and Comp Plan designation and the proposed zoning and Comp Plan changes so that changes can be made with additional substantive information. In summary, before decisions are made there should be: 1) economic analyses of the tax revenue impacts; 2) analysis of the jobs/housing issues and; 3) accurate and adequate analysis of potential traffic impacts. This matter was considered on December 9, one week to the day after the Housing Element was considered. At that time there was a fair amount of discussion about how the City Council had considered the Housing Element and was discussing the housing/jobs imbalance and the need for housing. Then here one week later we were confronted not only with a PC proposal for 110,000 square foot office building but then also Staff’s alternate proposal that would have allowed a 74,000 square foot office building. Thank you ver3~ much. Chair Bialson: Thank you. The next speaker is Joy Ogawa. Joy, you will have five minutes. Ms. Joy O~awa. 2305 Yale Street. Palo Alto: Thank you. Good evening. I would like to remind the Planning Commission that Policy L-46 of the Comp Plan says, "Maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road, Bayshore corridor areas as a diverse business and light industrial district. These areas provide valuable space for small businesses and support services." Again I would like to place emphasis on diverse small businesses and support services. Now on December 9 Council directed that the Zoning Ordinance Update look into accommodating and I would say even encouraging auto dealerships on this site and also looking into how housing might be accommodated on this site. Well, the Staff Report says that changing the Comp Plan designation to Research Office does not preclude auto dealerships. In fact changing the Comp Plan designation to Research Office would make this designation inconsistent with any of the current zoning districts in which auto dealerships are allowed. Auto dealerships are not permitted in LM(D)(3). The Staff Report shrugs that off and say that Staff proposes to add an auto dealership use in the LM(D)(3) zone as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update. Well. first of all Staffcan’t promise with certainty that specific changes to the Zoning Ordinance Update are going to occur. And second the Zoning Ordinance Update in my opinion won’t be complete for maybe another two years. I look back at a schedule from October 24, 2001 and supposedly this Zoning Ordinance Update was supposed to be completed in October of last year. Well we are way behind. We are more than a year behind. So the point is we are running way behind schedule with the Zoning Ordinance Update and in the interim one, two or three years maybe that will take to complete the Zoning Ordinance Update auto dealerships will not be allowed on this property if you rezone it to LM(D)(3). So by changing the Comp Plan designation to Research Office and the zoning district to LM(D)(3) the City will in effect eliminate all realistic possibility of there ever being an auto dealership on this property or indeed any other use that would be a benefit to the City. It is clear to me that more office use will not CiO, qf Palo Alto Page 28 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 benefit the City. As one Council Member pointed out the last thing we need in the City right now is more office. I went out to this area today and saw at least half of the office buildings there with a ’space available’ sign on them. Right next to the Arillaga-Peery property there is a large new and apparently empty office building with a huge ’space available’ sign right out in front. Staff says that retail and restaurant uses will remain as conditional uses in LM(D)(3). However these uses would be permitted uses in Service Commercial. Staff seems to be very inconsistent with the spin that it puts on conditional uses. When new office uses exceeding the 25% level were proposed to be made into conditional uses in the Research Park Staff characterized the conditional use permit as obstructive and an obstacle. However, when asked to make restaurant uses into permitted uses Staff says that it is okay to keep them as conditional uses because seemingly in the case of restaurants being a conditional use is not an obstacle. It seems to me the only consistent thing about Staft~s spin on conditional uses is that the spin is always directed at protecting office uses to the detriment of retail, restaurant and other resident serving uses. The current Comp Plan designation for Ming’s Restaurant, the Audi dealership and Anderson Honda is Service Commercial the same designation as this parcel. This is what Wynne Furth pointed out. Those, you call them adjacent, they are the contiguous ones that front Embarcadero, those properties are all designated Service Commercial right now. So it makes more sense to me to have this property remain Service Commercial in the Comp Plan designation. I realize we cannot force a property owner to build on or use his property in a particular way but indeed it is a city’s duty to prevent undesirable uses and to encourage desired uses through zoning. A Comprehensive Plan amendment and a zoning district change are not entitlements. The staff report points out that in order to amend the Comp Plan a finding must be made that the amendment is in the public interest. 1 don’t see how you can make that finding. These changes are not in the public interest. Even if you think that it might possibly be in the public interest I don’t see how you can responsibb make that determination without an economic impact study that analyzes the economic implications of these changes. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you I have no further speaker cards so I will close the public hearing and bring this back to the Commission. \\e have a request to make disclosures. Are those necessary in this? Why not? Ms. Furth: You certainly may feel free but it is a legislative act and it is not required. Chair Bialson: Alright. Comments or questions from the Commissioners? Joseph. Commissioner Bellomo: Is it appropriate to ask the applicant another question? Chair Bialson: That would be fine. Commissioner Bellomo: I wasn’t here at the September meeting. I am a new Commissioner. Your development company builds only office buildings? Mr. Peerv: Correct. Cio’ Qf Palo ,4 lto Page 29 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 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Bellomo: Your intention then is not to lookat a land use that might provide a mixed use development on this site? Mr. Peerv: Correct. Commissioner Bellomo: Okay. Would you consider it? Mr. Peerv: No. Commissioner Bellomo: Okay, thank you. Mr. Peep,,: One note about the traffic study. I forgot to mention this and I think I had a few more minutes that I didn’t use. There had been various traffic studies, despite the contrary, claim, by Fehr & Peers all which were wholeheartedty accepted by Carl Stoffel and Mr. Kott. That was at the 110,000 square foot level. That was considered with and without IKEA and there were no significant impacts. Commissioner Bellomo: One other question for you. Back to the PC, if you were able to build within a PC, just thinking outside the box I just want to gather question, if you were able to build that 74,000 square foot office building inclusive of another type of use would your company consider that? Mr. Peer’,,: No, such as housing on top of the building or something like that? Commissioner Bellomo: Whatever the mixed use might be. Mr. Peerv: No. Commissioner Bellomo: Strictly, build office building. So the PC if you weren’t able to get through a PC additional office space you wouldn’t build that project under a PC? Mr. Peerv: Correct. Commissioner Bellomo: Thanks. I appreciate it. Chair Bialson: Is there anything else you want to say? Mr. Peerv: I just want to say thank you for your time. Chair Bialson: Any others? Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I have a question about what we are to discuss and not to discuss. That is the question of the discussion that the Council had about automobile dealerships. I understand the Staff proposal to bring that back to us in the context of the Zoning Ordinance Update, which I think is good because without having information before us about the nature of automobile dealerships and the kinds of analysis we would need to analyze a use you are not expecting us to address that issue then tonight because there is nothing in the Staff Report about the pros and cons of automobile dealerships. Cio, of Palo Alto Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 !8 19 20 21 22 2~ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mr. Emslie: No, that is not the intent at all. The Council did direct that the Zoning Ordinance Update include review of the possibility of adding automobile sales in the LM districts. While we did perform a preliminary analysis to see if it would be appropriate to add that as a text amendment in conjunction with this application we concluded that we did not have adequate analysis and information to present to the Planning Commission for your consideration because this LM in all its incarnations applies in many different areas of the City. Therefore we don’t feel we had fully analyzed the impacts of how it might affect other areas that may be LM zones. So we wanted to be able to have the opportunity to do the analysis and outreach to owners that maybe in other parts of the City that are also zoned Light Manufacturing. Ms. Furth: I think from a legal point of view not knowing what the applicant or the particular property owner wants to do the decision that the Staff is presenting to you is is it appropriate to reclassify this for Office Research and in terms of the zoning is it appropriate to reclassify it so that the overall floor area actually goes down from .4 to .3 but the permitted office use goes up. Ms. French: I would also like to add that Council did mention automobile sales and asked us to explore that but they also discussed mixed use and potential for residential use on the site. The LM(D)(3) district does allow for that, both of those uses. So I wanted to add that. Commissioner Packer: I would like to ask another question. In the Comprehensive Plan Map the designation Service Commercial includes all those little PCs that are next to each other because those are restaurants. The Service Commercial, when we did the Comp Plan seemed appropriate to apply to a PC, an area that had a bunch of PCs. Since that time the corresponding zone for Service Commercial, which is Commercial Service, has this 5,000 square foot limit on office space. When the Comp Plan designation was put on there there wasn’t such a limit. So with these large areas to have a 5,000 square foot limit on an office space when you have two acres of land seems a little bit incongruous. I don’t know if you wanted to comment on that. Ms. Furth: I think you can see it as aggressively promoting other uses rather than offices. It is a zoning technique designed to encourage other kinds of commercia! uses. Chair Bialson: Any other Commissioners have any questions? Commissioner Holman: Yes. This is maybe a silly question. There is not such a designation as CSD so if we decided to make this a Service Commercial we would lose some of our review potential, ! presume. Ms. Furth: I think technically (D) is a combining district and could be combined with anything. Mr. Emslie: You can add that to any use. It is just that it happens it has been overlaid in this area predominantly. Ms. Furth: CS is a district and D is a combining district. I will double check it while you are talking but I think it could be combined with an?; district essentially. Chair Bialson: Michael. CiO’ of Palo .4 lto Page 31 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Griffin: Would you like to elaborate a little bit on the combining district designation? Mr. Emslie: The D is the design overlay. What that does is it sets up a extraordinary review process that involves the Planning Commission, ARB and City Council for any physical change to any site or building in that overlay or combining district. It is an extra layer of review. Commissioner Griffin: So in other words if any project comes before us, even one that does meet all the land use and qualifications of the zoning we are going to look at it anyway. Mr. Emslie: That is correct. As well as ARB and the City Council. Ms. Furth: The site and design review combining district other~vise known as the D district can be combined with an5, general district other than Open Space or AC, agricultural or something? Commissioner Holman: So it doesn’t matter that it has not been done before you can still combine it? Ms. Furth: It can’t be use with Open Space or Agricultural Conservation. Chair Bialson: Could Staff explain why they did not recommend and don’t seem to be recommending as we speak now Commercial Service for this particular lot given the fact that it does front on Embarcadero? You are recommending that we rezone this. Ms. French: Yes. The CS would be consistent with the underlying Comprehensive Plan designation. That is another alternative possibility. We were presented with a PC project that took us down the road of looking at the uses on this site. We did look at the surrounding uses, the surrounding zones, and determined that LM(D)(3) was appropriate because the adjacent parcels are LM(D)(3). Chair Bialson: Would CS be inappropriate? Ms. French: There are not CS zones out there. There are some that have a CS underlying land use designation but they are all PCs for the auto dealerships or Ming’s Restaurant. So there aren’t CS zones out there. Chair Bialson: Okay. Any other questions? Karen. Commissioner Hohnan: So the issue comes up some times of spot zoning. You are saying there are no other Service Commercial/Commercial Service. Ms. Furth: You are legally free to do either one of these in this circumstance. Spot zoning is actually what you say when something is illegal. I believe the Commission is free to do whichever you want. Certainly it wouldn’t be illegal to designate it CS. It wouldn’t be illegal to designate it LM. It is a policy determination. Chair Bialson: Phyllis. CiO’ of Palo ,4 lto Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Cassel: Let me speak for why I think this should be LM(D)(3). The surrounding area basically is LM(D)(3) zoning with the exception of those PC zones that happen to be existing as Commercial Service or Service Commercial. The reason for doing the LM(D)(3) is because the intensity is the lowest intensity we can use on it. My feeling is that we should keep the area on this side of the Embarcadero as low an-intensity as we possibly can. We have talked a lot about increasing the density in the center of town and we have done a lot for that. I haven’t been able to speak on certain lands because of a conflict but there has been a general policy of keeping very low density up in the hills and very low density out in the Baylands. So I wanted to see this LM(D)(3) because that in fact would give us the lowest intensity use that we have on the current books at the moment. It is an awkward spot to put a commercial business in because of the way the roads come off. Yes, it fits there but the entrances to the roads ideally won’t be on Embarcadero but be on Bayshore. We have an applicant in front of us who owns the land, The PC doesn’t work. This is one of the neat advantages of a PC you can take it out and debate the land and what we are going to do with it later. I just think that would be a good use. It gives us some varieD; if a landowner wants to come in and do something else. Chair Bialson: Go ahead Michael. Michael and then Pat. Commissioner Griffin: Not to belabor this automobile dealership thing but my understanding is we are not going to get into the automobile dealership utilization tonight. That has nothing to do with what we are trying to accomplish here. Mr. Emslie: That is right. Staff is currently studying that as a direction from the City Council on the Zoning Ordinance Update. Commissioner Griffin: And it does not have anything to do with our decision? Ms. Furth: It does have something to do with your decision whether to accept the recommendation to zone it Office Research or Research Office, to re-designate it for office use in the LM zoning. It is a permitted use under the existing classification, right? Not under the existing classification, it is a PC, but if you left the Comprehensive Plan designation as Service Commercial and rezoned this CS then it would be a permitted use. But we are saying that although the City Council has asked us to look into considering adding auto dealerships to the permitted uses in the LM district that is not a decision before you tonight. So it is relevant in your decision about whether to accept Staff’s recommendation on Office Research but it is not an issue in terms of is this a good idea wherever we have LM zoning. Ms. French: I would like to add ifI can on the Comprehensive Plan side of it this Comprehensive Plan designation that we are suggesting does not preclude automotive services uses. So there is that. Commissioner Griffin: And the applicant has been crystal clear that he has no intention of putting anything on this parcel other than an office building. Ms. French: Correct. Commissioner Griffin: Despite the fact that Cit) Council talked about other uses. City qf Palo Alto Page 33 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 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Burt: While acknowledging that this applicant is not interested in uses other than office the Council has kind of put these issues before us and even though I realize this going to be primarily discussed when we get into our ZOU ! would like to at least pass forward for consideration when we go into the ZOU a concept that if what we are trying to do is create more circumstances in these LM districts where significant sales tax generating uses would choose to locate there then we may want to even look at something such as TDRs where an auto service use typically would require a lower FAR of a structure than many of the other uses there. So we may want to look at that sort of arrangement where to incentivize either other parcels or whatever that we create some form of TDRs in that area. How else are we going to create an economic environment that would encourage automotive uses? For that matter the same theme is that we have had allowable uses for mixed use and residential in our LM districts for a long while and we have had no construction whatsoever in these areas of residential. As we go into that consideration I think we are going to want to look at FAR bonus incentives for the residential if we actually wish to incentivize whatever developers to consider that as a viable option. So those are more broad comments but as long as the Council has raised these issues in the context of this parcel I wanted to comment on the broader district issues. Chair Bialson: Any other Commissioners? Karen. Commissioner Holman: Just one. This is a difficult situation because there are pros and cons no matter which way’ we go there are definitely pros and cons. I don’t think the options we have, either one of them, present the best solution here. I want to just throw it on the table. Say that we decided that Service Commercial was what we wanted to zone this parcel, the underlying zoning leave the Comp Plan Service Commercial. Then it wouldn’t be possible to merge the two parcels so we would have less development and less office development but this owner isn’t interested in doing housing so can vou work through that for us? Mr. Emslie: The parcels still could be merged. Zoning district lines do not have to follow property lines. You would still have to respect the requirements of the zone but it wouldn’t preclude the merger of the two parcels. Commissioner Holman: Thanks for that clarification. Chair Bialson: Could you also give us some information on the intensity of use for Service Commercial? I think that was Phyllis’ comment. Mr. Emslie: We are looking that up right nox~. Ms. French: We have the FAR handy for CS, which is .5. Commissioner Bellomo: For office? Ms. French: No I am sorry. Chair Bialson: So what I understand is that CS allows coverage of.5. Is that correct. City ql~Palo AIto Page 34 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 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Ms. French: Yes. The Comprehensive Plan allows a range of between I think it is .3 and .5 for CS in the Comp Plan. The CS zone allows .5. Mr. Emslie: .4 Ms. French: .4 Mr. Emslie: It is .4 for non-residential and .6 for residential and provisions for mixed use with a maximum floor area of .6 for residential and the .4 for non-residential in a mixed use. Chair Bialson: Bonnie, do you have something you want to say? Commissioner Packer: I am ready to make a motion. Is that too soon for people? Chair Bialson: I think making a motion would be appropriate. It might crystallize some of our thinking. You can make it or I happen to -know someone else wants to make it too. MOTION Commissioner Packer: I would like to recommend that we approve the Staff recommendation to change the zoning to LM(D)(3) and the Comprehensive Plan designation to Research Office Park in part for reasons that Phyllis mentioned. We are going to get a less intense use at .3. We do have to recognize that right now there is a current owner who owns those three parcels. Those three parcels seem to work together and it would make sense that they have the same zoning. If you change the zoning let’s say to Service Commercial it would put a lot of constraints on how the property could be developed because only 5,000 square feet of office could be in that area of the 1.84 acre parcel. So it would create difficulties. So probably ultimately a developer would have to come forward with a PC because the zoning was so weird. So this LM(D)(3) seems to make sense. If in a few years, whenever we get the Zoning Ordinance Update done, we look at the uses and have a chance to analyze automobile dealerships and whatever that it is still possible. We are not shooting ourselves in the foot. We are not constricting ourselves too much with this designation. I think the underlying Comprehensive Plan designation of Service Commercial is just an oddity. There were no other types of designations to give something that was a PC and they or we probably just put that designation on there because there were existing restaurants. That was the only reason they put Service Commercial because it fit. If those PC weren’t there then probably the whole area would have been designated Research Office Park as it is in the Comp Plan. This.just makes sense. I am trying to distance my thoughts on this from who the applicant or the owner is today because those things could change. Zoning is something that goes on forever. I am trying not to be influenced by what the applicant wants to do or not do in their approach to using the land. I am looking at it from what makes sense for that area where there are large parcels, a lower density invites more landscaping, it is out near Baylands. Service Commercial is kind of a Downtown small size small building type of feel to it and LM(D)(3) just makes sense in this area. So just looking at it from a common sense perspective I think this is the way to go. Chair Bialson: Does anyone want to second the motion? City of Palo Alto Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2,~ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 SECOND Commissioner Griffin: I would second it. Chair Bialson: Michael seconds your motion. Do you care to speak to it Michael? Commissioner Griffin: In regard to the Comprehensive Plan amendment I would say that the Research and Office Park land use designation is compatible with the adjacent parcels as well as much of the general land use throughout the Embarcadero and Bayshore area. This designation in addition to Office Research also permits residential mixed use and commercial services thus giving us some flexibili~. In regard to changing the zone to LM(D)(3) again this zoning allows for housing, mixed use as well as office and based on the Cit-y Council comments relating to the desirability of promoting sales tax generating entities we can consider adding such to the permitted uses in our future dealings with the ZOU process. Finally, Steve’s point here about the D combining district of design and site review allowing us to study any project proposed for this parcel in assure that impacts are mitigated I think is a very favorable aspect to this zoning change. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Any Commissioners wish to speak to this? Joseph. Commissioner Bellomo: I concur with Michael’s comments on this and I also support the zone change to LM(D)(3). I think I have seen this project on the ARB and I think that Staffhas worked diligently through the PC process in regards to kind of gateway, Baylands features. I think the applicant has made strides in that regard as well. So I think the intensity of use as ~vell remains at a more limited way. I wasn’t here at the last meeting. I do want to speak, just briefly, to the process. My concern of the amount of effort that the applicant did spend on this project baffles me the way it came about. Hopefully there can be more effort in prescreening and not getting projects so far along. Having said that I do support the motion. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Karen. Commissioner Holman: I wish there were some other better options. I am inclined to support this because the CS is a more intense development and there is already such a bad traffic situation there. So I am inclined to support it. Again, I wish there were some other options available to us for this. I need to make a comment also about Attachment D, the Ordinance, Section 1-B says the Commission recognizes that the restaurant use of the 1.84 acre parcel appears to be no longer economically viable in that the failure of Scott’s Seafood, etc. I cannot agree with that because we don’t know, from my perspective, that a restaurant is really unviable there. Scott’s didn’t seem to work out there but Ming’s right across the way is quite successful. So ! cannot agree with that and would not agree with including that within the ordinance. I don’t know how other Commissioners feel about that. Chair Bialson: Any other Commissioners wish to speak to the motion? If not let’s vote. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 MOTION PASSED All the Commissioners in favor please say aye. (ayes) All against say nay. That passes seven to zero. This matter is concluded. Wait. Karen has a comment. Commissioner Holman: Actually I have some directions I would like to see if we could get Commission agreement on or concurrence on. One of them seems to have gone away since the applicant is not considering below grade parking now. One of them is because I understand that Staff is working on the Bayland Master Plan implementation I would like for the Commission to direct the Planning Director and the ARB to consider the natural environment setting when reviewing applications for this site. Commissioner Cassel" ! don’t think we can do that. We don’t give Staff direction. We ask them to do things but we don’t give Staff direction, do we? Mr. Emslie: It is often valuable for the Commission to give us your issues and concerns much like Commissioner Burr gave us ideas on the TDRs and ways to incentivize that. We would take the suggestions in much the same light. Commissioner Holman: So I would look for Commission support on that or see if we can get some concurrence on that please. Commissioner Cassel: I guess I don’t even understand what you are talking about. Chair Bialson: I think you can give the suggestions and if we have an objection to them we will speak. Commissioner Hotman: Then just to clarify and have on the record that we understand that future projects developed on this site because of CEQA implications and because of the overlay that we have to consider projects would consider traffic impacts and we do have mitigation measures and evaluation of those. So for instance we could take into consideration IKEA. Commissioner Griffin: I would strongly echo that sentiment. Commissioner Holman: Great. Thank you, Michael. Commissioner Cassel" Except that if this comes in within the zone, do we do all of those extra studies if this comes in within the zone? Ms. Furth: If this is zoned for the D overlay it is a discretionary, review when it comes back. Whenever you do a discretionary review the first thing that the Staff does is look at it under CEQA. If it is not such a small project that it is what we call categorically exempt, and it isn’t, then we do an initial study. Whatever the initial study shows under all the state and Comprehensive Plan guidelines as to what we should look at then if it turns up potential adverse impacts on traffic or bird life or anything else then either we have to propose changes in the plan that will solve those problems, significantly reduce them, or we have to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. So your opportunity to make sure that issues that concern you have been addressed will be when you look at that proposed environmental documentation. You CiO, of Palo Alto Page 3 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 !8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 are used to those questionnaire forms that we have. Two parts of the City, the Open Space district on the western edge and this area on the eastern edge are identified in the Comprehensive Plan as particularly sensitive areas. So that means that whenever environmental analysis is done in either of those areas we assume that things are more vulnerable than they, are in my neighborhood. Commissioner Holman: Then the last one I would like to add is because we do have a poor intersection performance here and I understand from Staff at previous meetings that there is not a whole lot of empirical information about air pollution as it relates to traffic I would like to encourage Staff to pursue whatever information is available so that in reviewing projects in the future at this site the traffic impacts that create air pollution problems are fully addressed here. Ms. Furth: It is localized air pollution that you are concerned about. Chair Biatson: Pat, you wanted to speak? Commissioner Burt: Yes. I just wanted to make sure my recollection is correct that in our discussion of the LM districts under our Zoning Ordinance Update that we have been considering TDM programs as standard requirements within new development in the LM districts. Is that correct? And that that would prospectively apply to this and other developments? Mr. Emslie: That is correct. Ms. Furth: One of the things as you point out this is an area where a lot of people want to go in cars and that means that environmental checklist often require additional traffic studies. It is a sensitive area in that regard too. Commissioner Butt: So the answer was that we are reviewing TDM programs? Mr. Emslie: Yes. Ms. Furth: Yes. Commissioner Butt: Thank you. Ms. Furth: The point I was trying to make is because this is an area that has a lot of traffic often in order to make a project eligible for a negative declaration you have to do something like a TDM. Chair Bialson Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I don’t know how to say this. I think what Karen is saying is that environmental concerns are something that we are going to be concerned about for any project that we look at. We are not singling out this potential project as any more sensitive or less sensitive than any major project that we look at that we have environmental questions about. We are going to have questions about traffic, about a sensitive natural environment, air pollution, all kinds of impacts that a CEQA review would bring to our attention. So yes, these are things we CiO’ qf Palo Alto Page 38 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 are concerned about but we don’t have to say it every time for every project because it will come forward and we will have the opportunity to see what the analysts say about each of the CEQA areas that are looked at. Chair Bialson: I think we have all communicated our feelings about this and have indicated to Staff the areas of interest. Karen, I see your finger but just a couple of sentences, okay? Commissioner Holman: No, I am not trying to single any project out or any property out. I am just recognizing that this is a very sensitive location and I wanted to just emphasize the need for really thorough examination because of its particular location. Chair Bialson: Thank you. I think we are through with this project at this time. So we close the public hearing. Thank you very much. The next item on our agenda, shifting right over, is Reports From Officials. Does Staff want to speak to this? REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. To request Commission to initiate a change to the Zoning Regulations to maintain and continue of existing ordinance regulating non-neighborhood serving businesses in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) districts in the Midtown area and Charleston shopping center. If a change is initiated, a public hearing will be held on February 12, 2003. Mr. Emslie: Just ve~’ briefly. This is to initiate a zoning change that basically is intended to extend two ordinances that apply to the Midtown and the Charleston commercial areas. These ordinances were set with sunset dates or set to expire in March of this year and the zoning action we are proposing would be to make those changes permanent and ongoing and remove this sunset provision. Chair Bialson: So you are looking for a motion from the Commission? Mr. Emslie: To initiate the zoning and then we will come back. Chair Bialson: Then you will come back February 12. MOTION Commissioner Griffin: I so move. SECOND Commissioner Holman: I’ll second. MOTION PASSED CiO’ qflPalo ,4 lto Page 39 Attachment G Excerpt of Palo Alto City Council Minutes of December 9, 2002 ~-. ,~-layficld said tIhCrC wcTc co,mplcxltles to w,het,her t,he Council was op~elf up to liabilities, which Mr. Jenkins could better address. $1.1BST:i:T~m.~NOT:I:ON FAIl:LED 4-5, Beecham, Butch, Mossar, Morton "yes." COUNCIL TOOK NO F~ACTION ON THE NOTIION, RECESS: 9:40 p.m. to 9:50 p.m7--,,~ A~dation for Educ~,i4p,~, said the Palo Alto Foundation f~ds to benefit a~blic schools in the Palo Alto ~USD). They awarded t~ar~er grants and matched ~r the schools. The PA~,~had invested bond and Gunn to the gY, 10.PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the following application and alternate project for 2300 East Bayshore Road: (Continued from 10/15/02) Application by Carol Jansen on behalf of A&P Family Investments to allow a 110,000-square-foot, two-story office building with surface and underground parking facilities on a 5.66-acre site replacing an existing restaurant and office buildings totaling 41,700 square feet, requiring: 1) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of a 1.84-acre parcel from "Service Commercial" to "Research/Office Park"; 2) a rezoning of the 5.66-acre site to a Planned Community (PC); and 3) a merging of a 3.82-acre parcel with the !.84-acre parcel to create a single 5.66-acre parcel. Environmental Assessment: A draft Initial Study was prepared but not completed. File Nos: 02-CPA-01, 02-EIA-03, 02-PC-01. Alternate project recommended by staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission comprised of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, a rezoning of the 1.84-acre parcel to the LM(D)(3) zone, consistent with the zoning of the adjacent 3.82 parcel, and adoption of a Negative Declaration. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been_prepared and released for public review on August 28, 2002. File Nos: 02-CPA-01,.02-ZC-03, 02-EIA-11. Director of Planning and Community Environment Steven Emslie said the proposed project was an application for a new Planned Community (PC) zone 12/09/02 15 that covered approximately 5.50 acres of land adjacent to Highway 101, and the Embarcadero and East Bayshore Roads. The site contained a PC zone, which was a site-specific zoning tool that was customized to a particular project and allowed a narrow range of uses. The applicant proposed to expand the zoning to the entire site and amend it to allow an office building in excess of 100,000 square feet. The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) voted 7-0 to deny the requested PC project. Staff understood the rationale in reevaluating and redeveloping the site on a comprehensive basis, and saw the wisdom in proceeding with the base zone. The LM(D)(3) was comprised of a substantial amount of property under consideration for redevelopment, and was the predominate zone in the East Bayshore industrial area. There were a few exceptions to the LM(D)(3) zone, which were primarily PC zones and site-specific. Staff was supportive of amendments necessary to address the former Scott’s Restaurant building to LM(D)(3) in the Research/Office (RO) designation under the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), which was necessary in order to realize the comprehensive redevelopment of the site. Planning Manager Amy French said Planning staff and the P&TC had concerns about the development intensity proposed by the A&P Family Investments project. The proposed PC project was a two-story 110,000 square-foot building. The floor area was outside of what was planned for "build-out" of Palo Alto envisioned in the Comp Plan, specifically Policy L-8, which required maintaining the limit of new non-residential floor area per the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study of 1989. The P&TC members were concerned about current traffic congestion in the area and the jobs/housing imbalance. Attachment A of the October 15, 2002, staff report (CMR:411:02) provided findings for denial of the requested PC District. Staff did support a resolution amending the restaurant parcel from Service Commercial (CS) to RO Park (Attachment C of CMR:411:02). The change in designation would still allow a diversity of uses called for in the Comp Plan and was supported by Policies L-46, L-5, and L-7. Staff also supported the rezoning of the parcel from PC to LM(D)(3), which would allow up to 24,000 square feet. That was 15,600 more square feet than the former restaurant building provided in floor area. Mayor Ojakian asked the Senior Assistant City Attorney whether the item was quasi-judicial and subject to Council’s Disclosure Policy. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said although the item was largely legislative, there was a request for PC zoning and Council disclosure was appropriate out of an abundance of caution. Council Member Lytle said she had been contacted by the applicants and by Carol 3ensen acting on their behalf. 12/09/02 16 Council Member Morton said he had spoken with Mr. Peery and Carol Jensen. Council Member Burch said he had spoken with Mr. Peery and Carol Jensen, and conducted a site visit. Vice Mayor Mossar said she had nothing to disclose. Mayor Ojakian said he had spoken with the Peery’s approximately 8 months prior, and recently conducted a site visit. Council Member Kleinberg said she had spoken with the Peery’s and Carol Jensen, and conducted a site visit. Council Member Kishimoto said she had spoken with Carol Jensen and Angelica Volterra, and conducted a site visit with Mr. Peery. Council Member Beecham said he had conducted a site visit with Richard and Jason Peery, and had spoken with Carol Jensen and received electronic mail from her. Council Member Freeman said she had spoken with Mr. Peery and conducted a site visit with him as well. Vice Mayor Mossar asked staff if it was their intention to rezone one or both of the parcels to LM(D)(3). Mr. Emslie said the rezoning would encompass the former Scott’s Restaurant building, which was the area designated for PC. Vice Mayor Mossar clarified the second parcel was already zoned LM(D)(3). Mr. Emslie said that was correct. Vice Mayor Mossar asked for a summary of the allowable uses in LM(D)(3). Mr. Emslie said LM(D)(3) zoning allowed for childcare, all forms of residential housing, and restaurants, which did require a use permit. Vice Mayor Mossar said whether LM(D)(3) zoning allowed for an auto dealership. Mr. Emslie said an auto dealership would fall under Retail Services, which are conditionally permitted under LM(D)(3) zoning. 12/09/02 17 Vice Mayor Mossar said it sounded as if LM(D)(3) was a broad zone, which was compatible with other zoning in the area. Mr. Emslie said that was correct. It predominantly governed the uses in the a tea. Mayor Ojakian declared the Public Hearing open at 10:10 p.m. Cliff Chang, Principal, Hoover & Associates Architects, showed a slideshow presentation of the exterior scheme of the proposed project, which began as a two-story office park in the midst of Highway 101 and Embarcadero and East Bayshore Roads. Initially, the building was an L-shaped scheme with an entry statement, which broke the building down into two parts towards the entry. One aspect of the project was the creation of underground parking, which would minimize on-grade parking and allow for greater landscaped areas around the building. The design was a sustainable one with a light- colored pallet and improved solar orientation to reduce exposure on the building. Fred Choa, Traffic Consultant, Fehr & Peers Associates, 3685 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, said he had completed approximately three revisions of the traffic study by looking at the potential impacts of the project. Traffic studies were conducted at the intersection of East Bayshore and Embarcadero Roads, south of the project at San Antonio Road, and north of the project at University Avenue. City staff in the Transportion Division assisted his office in developing the scope of work, which scenarios to anticipate, including the proposed Ikea project, and any future conditions with or without their proposed project. The overall conclusion found that the project as proposed resulted in no significant traffic impacts at all intersections except Highway !01 at San Antonio Road. That intersection had been unsignalized for many years, which made it diffucult to make the turn left movement during the morning and evening peak hours. Caltrans and the Cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View have been working jointly to mitigate that intersection. It was hoped the intersection would be completed as part of the Sun Microsystems redevelopment project. Signal coordination was discussed along the East Bayshore Road corridor as a means of improving traffic flow for residents of Palo Alto and motorists traveling to and from the Dumbarton Bridge. Richard Peery, 2200 Cowper Street, asked the Council for their consideration of the proposed project. Mr. Emslie clarified to Vice Mayor Mossar it was the restaurant portion of the site that was zoned Service Commercial (CS), which would allow for an auto dealership. The balance of the site, designated as RO, would not. 12/09/02 18 Vice Mayor Mossar asked whether it pertained to the current zoning. Mr. Emslie said the PC zoning under current Comp Plan would have to be amended to allow for an auto dealership. Angelica Volterra, P.O. Box 1724, was opposed to the proposed A&P Family Investment Project that was documented by staff in the City Manager’s Report (CMR:470:02). She did not believe there had been an adequate economic analysis of the effects of staff’s proposed Comp Plan change from CS to RO including the possible loss of tax revenue and the possible exacerbation of the existing jobs/housing imbalance. She disagreed with the applicant’s assertion of the lack of retail viability in that area given the vitality of other nearby retail establishments. She believed an adequate and thorough traffic analysis was needed to compare the present Comp Plan zoning and designation with the proposed Comp Plan zoning and changes. She also suggested an in depth analysis comparing the LM(D)(3) zoning with the LM(D)(5) zoning at the proposed location, as the LM(D)(5) zoning would create fewer environmental impacts. Bunny Good, P.O. Box 824, Menlo Park, was opposed to the proposed A&P Family Investment project. She did not believe the applicant took proper care of the building when he leased it as a restaurant. John Baca, 484 Oxford Street, urged the Council to take no action on the project and deny the PC application. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, was opposed to the proposed project and urged the Council to deny the PC application. She was also opposed to staff’s recommendation for a change to the Comp Plan’s land use designation from CS to RO Park, and the zoning change from the present PC to LM(D)(3). Daniel Garber, 2201 Byron Street, encouraged the Council to approach the applicant’s proposal with flexibility and creativity. He urged the Council to keep an open mind to creating opportunities out of projects such as the one proposed that evening. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, urged the Council to reject the proposed PC project. Palo Alto already had a high office vacancy rate, close to 25-. percent. He believed the area should be rezoned for commercial use, because auto dealerships would generate tax revenues for the City. He noted that a number of auto dealerships had left the area because of too few zoned areas for their use. 12/09/02 19 Carol Jansen, 575 Hawthorne Avenue, said the traffic analysis did take into account the-traffic projections for the IKEA store. The uses of the East Bayshore Employment District were employment and open space. Mayor Ojakian declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:48 p.m. Council Member Kishimoto asked staff why they recommended rezoning.and changing the land-use designation now as opposed to the next year, when the Council was scheduled to review the Planning and Transportation Commission recommendations on the overall LM zone. Mr. Emslie said those changes were text changes not map changes. Staff’s rationale had to do with multiple zones under one ownership and the desire to reutilize underdeveloped or vacant pieces of property. It was extremely difficult to develop those under two different zones and two different Comp Plans. The site needed to be viewed on a comprehensive basis and remove some of the artificial constraints that would prevent an orderly development. Council Member Kishimoto asked what analysis did staff complete to make the recommendation of RO. Mr. Emslie said the LM(D)(3) allowed a wide variety of other retail sales, which included automobile related retail, such as an auto parts store. It also offered the flexibility to look at interesting and diverse projects for the site. Council Member Freeman asked what was the process the proposed project went through and whether it was the correct process. Mr. Emslie said the applicants had developed specific architectural drawings, which were reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on numerous occasions. Staff had hoped to redirect their energies in the future to take advantage of the pre-screening process, which would enable the Council and the P&TC to give general guidance to applicants in terms of the Comp Plan and zoning objectives. Council Member Freeman asked whether the original policy was to present the project to the ARB first and then the P&TC. Mr. Emslie said the policy involved a two-step process. It was first initiated by the P&TC, and then forwarded to the ARB. The P&TC would discuss the broader issues and the ARB would make a recommendation of the project back to the P&TC. The P&TC would then present its recommendation to the Council based on input from the ARB. i2/09/02 20 Ms. French said the applicant came forward with an initial application for both preliminary ARB review and a PC project, which they have the option to do. Ms. Furth said when the PC district application was reviewed by the P&TC, the recommendation was denial, and they forward their recommendation to the Council without review from the ARB. Council Member Morton asked whether the former Scott’s Restaurant building was Research/Office with a PC overlay. Mr. Emslie said no. It was CS Comp Plan with a PC overly. Council Member Morton asked what would the build out be if both parcels were CS. Mr. Emslie said the build out would increase from .3 to .5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) under the CS Comp Plan designation. Council Member Morton clarified that by choosing LM(D)(3) zoning, the applicant would be forced to a lower density. Mr. Emslie said that was correct. Council Member Morton asked whether the Council was required to deny the PC if they voted in favor of the LM(D)(3) zoning. Mr. Emslie said the PC would need to be acted on as a separate motion. Council Member Morton asked whether staff’s recommendation to deny the PC would have been different if the public benefit was made clearer. Mr. Emslie said no. The public benefit could never outweigh a project that did not conform to the City’s development policy. Council Member Morton said he was troubled the City chose to "densify" El Camino Real by building mixed-use projects, but when it came to a space on the freeway, it was given the lowest zoning possible. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether it was possible to put mixed-use or all housing on the other side of Highway 101 on the same type of corner. Mr. Emslie said Council’s action that evening would continue to allow, as a permitted use, housing to be put on that site. However, that permissive 12/09/02 21 policy had not always been successful in equalizing the City’s jobs/housing balance. The approach would be to create a narrower zone. Council Member Kleinberg said those were policy issues being raised. She asked whether there were any environmental reasons. Mr. Emslie said the closer development extended to the bay, there were issues of safety, which could be technically resolved through structural engineering and site preparation. Noise and air quality impacts were also an issue. Mayor Ojakian said the original staff report (CMR:411:02) indicated four recommendations from the Planning Staff. He asked whether the P&TC unanimously approved all four of those recommendations. Mr. Emslie said yes. Vice Mayor Mossar said she was interested in maximizing the ability to increase sales tax revenues by the sales of automobiles. She believed the proposed site was a good one for that although testimony was presented that negated the option. She did not want to take any action that evening which would preclude the Council’s ability to do that. She asked for clarification of which of staff’s recommendations might need to be continued for future discussion. Mr. Emslie said if the Counci! was interested in preserving the CS zoning for a possible automobile sales site, they should not implement the LM(D)(3) zoning or ROComp Plan designation for the balance of the site. ~tOT~:ON: Vice Mayor Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to approve the staff and Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommendation as follows: 1) Deny the Planned Community (PC) requested by A&P Family :Investments for a 110,000- square-foot, two-story office building on a 5.66- acre site (based upon recommended finding for denial set forth in Attachment A of CMR:411:02; and 2) refer recommendations 2-4 back to the Planning and Transportation Commission for discussion of potential zoning to allow automobile retail sales, recommendations 2-4 being adoption of revised Negative Declaration amending the land use map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to change the designation of the !.84-acre parcel at 2300 East Bayshore from Service Commercial to Research/Office Park; changing the zoning classification of the 1.84-acre parcel to LM(D)(3) if an appropriate project having no greater than 0.3:1 Floor Area Ratio is submitted. 12/09/02 22 Council Member Burch said the City was in difficult financial times and did not need another office building. He hoped the possibility of using the site as an automobile dealership for perhaps 10 years would increase sales tax revenues for the City. He had spoken to various auto dealers in the City and they all desired visibility and space where they could be seen. Council Member Freeman asked whether the site was already zoned LM(D)(3) or LM(D)(5), based on the City’s first cut. Mr. Fmslie said the majority of the area was designated LM(D)(3) with the exception of PC’s that had been granted over the years. Council Member Morton said he did not want to protect Mr. Peery from the financial risk of building a quality office building. He would like to see the corner upgraded, the buildings filled, and people to cross the street and shop at Albertson’s. That was how he envisioned obtaining sales tax revenues in the community. He was opposed to the motion. Council Member Beecham expressed support for the motion. The staff report (ClVlE:411:02) indicated the basis for denial of the PC, which he agreed with. ]:n particular, it was not compatible with the Comp Plan. He appreciated the effort to find benefits in the area that could be applied to the site, but he did not believe they rose to level he would want to see for the increased square footage for office space. Council Member Kleinberg expressed support for the motion. The proposal would add approximately 200 new jobs and increase the housing deficient by over 100 units, which would worsen the City’s job/housing imbalance. Staff needed to break open the traditional views of where housing should go or the City would be left with limited sites for housing. I:NCORPORATED :INTO THE MOT:ION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the potential for rezoning for housing and mixed use also be reviewed. 12/09/02 23 Vice Mayor Mossar said there was no transit service for the proposed location. The City already had a shuttle service which was expensive, operated on limited hours, and would not transport people across the street to shop at AIbertson’s. She was aware the City’s water treatment facility was an issue for its neighbors, who were commercial businesses. She said she was willing to have the. P&TC look at the potential for rezoning the site for housing. Council Member Freeman expressed support for the motion. She had concerns about infrastructure issues that she did not believe had been addressed. Council Member Kishimoto expressed support for the motion. She noted for Mr. Peery the housing impact fee, which was zero last year, was only one- third of the actual cost to the City. Council Member Lytle said she was in favor of constructing athletic fields in the Baylands. She said the reason the area was called an Employment District was because City Planners believed it would be far better to risk daytime users lives in a liquefaction occurrence than it would to have the risk of a 24-hour population of residents. One of the constraints to housing in the area was solid landfill, which turned into water in an earthquake. She asked her colleagues to consider not putting residents in an area of prime risk for natural disaster. Council Member Beecham suggested not sending the matter to the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) for further analysis. He did not believe there would be any development in the short term in the area of commercial services. Staff was presently involved in the Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU), which was taking up a lot of Planning staff’s time. In addition, the Mayor had setup an Ad Hoc Committee on the Economic Base who was looking at what the City needed to do to improve its economics. Vice Mayor Mossar asked Council Member Beecham if he was suggesting no zoning. Council Member Beecham said he was suggesting either no zoning or change the zoning it to LM(D)(3). :INCORPORATED :INTO THE MOT:ION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER to delete the language, "and refer recommendations 2-4 back to Planning and Transportation Commission for discussion..." and replace with the language, "and refer recommendations 2-4 to the Zoning Ordinance Update for consideration." [2/09/02 24 Ms. French said Recommendation No. 3 was regarding a Comp Plan amendment. It involved a land use issue not a zoning issue. Mr. Fmslie said when staff completed the text and applied zoning districts, there may be a need to adjust the Comp Plan. Vice Mayor Mossar clarified the motion had been adjusted to refer Recommendation Nos. 2-4 to the ZOU rather than the P&TC. Council Member Freeman asked whether the latest incorporation to the motion would have any impact on the developer being able to offer another option within the next 2-year period. Mr. Emslie said the developer could propose a project ahead of the ZOU. They could apply for an LM(D)(3) project that met with those standards. Ms. Furth said under Palo Alto’s procedures for amending the zoning code, the P&TC or the City Council had the power to initiate the zone change. The applicant only had the right to do so every year. Council Member Morton asked whether the item would need to return to Council to make the parcels coherent zoning. Ms. Furth said there were presently two parcels, which were not unified in zoning, however, each one had consistency between the Comp Plan designation and the zoning. Council Member Morton clarified the Council was denying the PC zone change and leaving it to the applicant or to either the P&TC or the City Council to start the process over again. Mayor Ojakian said the one qualifier to the motion was that it included adding auto dealership or housing/mixed-use. Council Member Lytle suggested added the phrase "denial without prejudice" and allowed an applicant to return within the year. Ms. Furth said Palo Alto’s equivalent to that was to let the applicant petition the City Council to authorize them to go ahead. Mr. Emslie said staff’s position was if a project came in and conformed to LM(.D)(3), the project could proceed without any impediments or limitations on timing. It would be a substantially lower intensity project than was originally contemplated in the PC. 12/09/02 25 MOT]ION PASSED 7-2, Lytle, Morton "no." Council Member Lytle said she voted "no" because she would have wanted to receive a PC application with a bigger public benefit in a smaller project. ~COI’.I.~.IENTS ’~UESTIONS AND ~CE~4ENTS Council Member Lytle stated she had complete confidence in the City Attorh~y and all the Council Appointed Officers. The October 7, 2002, meeting, as available on videotape and the minutes were available. NIOT]ION: T~ouncil Member Freeman moved, second by Kishimoto, that Council referN;~he review of policy of complaints and discussion of the City _ __M_anager Reportx~CMR)~ format to the Policy and Services Committee. _City Manager FrankXxBenest said staff would have no problem discussion the for_mat ofCMR’s. The’r~ was a fundamental disagreement with the complaint policy. The complaint’lq,olicy was fine, however the complainant did notalways like the response f~ staff. ~_O:]ION_SEPARATED FOR ~H~ PURPOSE OF VOT]ING FIRST PART_ OF MOT]ION TO i~fer the review of the complaint handling P_°Iicy .t.°_ ihe p°licy and Services (PS~C°mmittee. Cou~reeman said she felt~a~ responsibility to have a discussion ~n the_.com pl.aint policy. of the P&S Committee was to r~wed Coundl’s poises. If the policy was okay, a~ it was being follow~, by staff, was that within ::e p_urview °f :he P&S Committee’ . Mr~ministrative pol~¥k~/ and not within the ~es.ti.on .of w_hetherXs~taff was followin,g_the policy was a discussion to be had with the City Man~j, er about staffs p.~rfo:.manc:: ........., -~ ffhowto : rit.e, th :1 r_~ M ~’.s. _ .... .........,_ to the City Manager’s Office on how staff could effectively accomplish th WaS V~u~u~, 12/09/02 26