Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2002-10-15 City Council (7)
TO: FROM:’ City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: OCTOBER 15, 2002 CMR:411:02 2300 EASTBAYSHORE ROAD: APPLICATION FOR A 110,000- SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE BUILDING AS A PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ON A 5.66-ACRE SITE AND .AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMP-REHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 1.84-ACRE SITE FROM SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO RESEARCH/0FFICE PARK RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the Council: 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 findings for denial set forth in Attachment A). °After reviewing any public comments and response to public comments, adopt the revised Negative Declaration-for a redesignation of the 1.84:acre restaurant pa}cel from Service Commercial to Research/Office Park and rezoning of the parcel from PC to LM(D)(3) (Attachment B). o Adopt a resolution amending the land use map of the PaIo Alto Comprehensive Plan to change the designation of the 1.84-acre parcel at 2300 East Bayshore from Service Commercial to Research/Office Park (Attacth-nent C). Support the Commission’s recommendation to change 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 (Attachment D). CMR:411:02 Page 1 of 6 BACKGROUND Proiect Description A&P Family Investment’s project for two adjacent parcels, and alower intensity rezoning to LM(D)(3) recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission are described in the Commission staff report (Attachment F). The existing development on the 5.66-acre site is 41,600 square feet, comprised of 32,200 square feet of office space and 8,400. square feet of restaurant. The restaurant is currently, closed. A&P Family Investments requests a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Community Zone to allow .(1) demolition of four one-story office buildings totaling 33,200 square feet and one restaurant .building totaling 8,400 square feet; and. (2) construction of a two-story, l l0,000-square-foot office building, with underground and surface parking facilities providing 396 spaces on a 5.66 acre site. The proposed public benefit package is: (1) one year of funding the City’s Embarcadero Road shuttle, (2) construction of, or contribution toward a Baylands gateway feature, (3) construction of a transit passenger shelter on site to complement the shuttle, and (4) modifications to signalized intersections to improve traffic flow along the East Bayshore corridor (requiring coordination of four public jurisdictions). A draft initial study (Attachment G) was prepared but not completed for the Planning and Transportation Commission review of the applicant’s proposed project, because additional documents are needed from the applicant and staff recommends denial of the project. Board and Commission Review On September 4, 2002, the Planning and Transportation Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council deny the requested Planned Community project, and apt~r0ve a Negative Declaration and Resolutions for a rezoning and amended land use designation for the 1.84’-acre restaurant parcel to LM(D)(3) and Research/Office Park. Minutes of the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting are attached (Attachment E). Commissioners stated their concern that the project was not presented earlier in the process to the Commission, prior to the preliminary Architectural Review Board review. Three members of the public spoke to the Commission regarding the item. The first speaker stated that she objects to the applicant’s PC project and the alternate project, since she-could not support the findings and thought the rezoning constituted a circumventing of the ground floor retail regulations in the C-S zone. The second speaker explained why she thought the Negative Declaration is inadequate, referencing the flood zone, the traffic analysis and an East Pal0 Alto traffic analysis. The third speaker noted her support for staff’s recommendation, her concern about traffic and flooding in the area, and the need for a bicycle path connection..Staff subsequently received emails from the first two speakers, and these are attached with a response to the Revised Negative Declaration. CMR:411:02 Page 2 of 6 The Commission supported staff’s findings for denial of the Planned Community (Attachment A). Therefore, the Planned Community request is forwarded directly to the City Council for action, rather than being forwarded to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for its review. The ARB had reviewed preliminary plans for the project on February 7, 2002. The ARB has not reviewed the most recent plans. A summary is provided below, supplemented by a table illustrating existing conditions and the potential development scenarios under the Planned Community District requested by the applicant and the Commission’s proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and LM(D)(3) zoning. In summary, the key differences in potential development on the combined parcels (5.66- acre site) under the two proposals are: A& P Family Investments is requesting approximately 36,000 square feet more than would be permitted under the Commission recommendation. o A& P Family Investments proposes a Planned Community District, with a public benefit component. The Commission recommendation requires Site and Design Review instead of Planned Community review. Both proposals would shift the preferred uses on the restaurant site from Service Commercial to Research/Office Park. As shown in the table, under the existing Comprehensive Plan designations, development could be intensified on both the restaurant parcel and office parcel. Any intensification of use on the restaurant parcel would require a zone change; the office development on the adjacent parcel could be increased by a third without a zone change. CMR:411:02 Page 3 of 6 Table of existing development on 2300 East Bayshore Road, A&P Family Investments’ project and the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation Land Use designation Zoning. Site Area FLoor Area Maximum ’ Floor Area, Permitted under Comp Plan Maximum Floor Area, under zoning district Site Coverage Maximum site coverage Building Height Existing development: Office parcel Research/ Office Park LM(D)(3) 3.82 acres (166,400 sf.) 33,200 sf. (0.2:1 FAR) 83,200 sf.. (0.5:1 FAR) 49,920 sf. (0.3:1 FAR) 20% of site 30% of site One story Existing development Restaurant parcel Service Commercial PC 2785 1.84 acres, (80,150 sf.) 8,400 Sf. (0.1:1 FAR) 32,060 sf. (0.4:1 FAR) 8,400 sf. (0.1:1 FAR) unless PC amended 10% of site 10% unless PC amended One story Commission Recommendation: Rezone restaurant parcel to LM(D)(3); retain LM(D)(3) zoning on office site, potential for development Research/Office Park on both parcels LM(D)(3) on both parcels 5.66 acres No new floor area proposed at this time 0.5:1 Potential for 24,045 sf. on restaurant parcel, or 73,965 sf., merged lot LM(D)(3), 0.3:1 FAR No new site coverage Potential 30% of site- Up to 35 feet plus mechanical screen *Project would require discretionary review by Commission, ARB and Council. Applicant project: PC on merged parcels, two-story office building Research/Office Park on both parcels PC on both parcels 5.66 acre merged, (246,549 sf.) 1.10,000 sf. proposed (increase of 68,400) 123,275 sf. (0.5:1 FAR) maximum 110,000 sf., any additional area would require PC amendment 23% of merged site 23% of merged site 33’9" to parapet, 43’9" to top of roof screen Since the Commission meeting, staff has come to the conclusion that it would be wise to delay the rezoning to LM(D)(3) because the existing, vacant restaurant would become an existing, non-conforming use in an LM(D)(3) District. Staff still supports the Comprehensive Plan amendment to Research/Office Park, since restaurant use is not precluded by a Research!Office Park land use designation. CMR:411:02 Page 4 of 6 The alternate, project analyzed in the proposed Negative Declaration is the Comprehensive Plan amendment and a rezoning of the 1.84-acre parcel to the Research/Office Park designation and LM(D)(3) zone, consistent with the designation and zoning of the adjacent.3.82 parcel. The Negative Declaration was released for a public review period from August 28 through September 18, 2002. However~ the notice appeared, on August 30, 2002 and the Planning and Transportation Commission report noted the public review period extended until September 26, 2002. Therefore, public comments were received through September 26, 2002 and the Negative Declaration was revised September 26, 2002 to address those comments (Attachment B.) If the City Council approves the Comprehensive Plan amendment, the existing PC district will still be a conforming use, since restaurants are permitted in Research/Office Park areas. Any rezoning and development approval would be subject to a separate, site- specific environmental review. The bui!ding floor area that.could be allowed on the 1.84-acre site under the.proposed Research/Office Park land use designation and LM(D)(3).zoning is 24,045 square feet, 15,645 square feet more than the existing 8,400-square-foot restaurant. This is 8,015 square feet less floor area than could be allowed via a PC amendment under the existing Service Commercial land use designation (32,060 square feet at a .4:1 FAR). ATTACHNENTS Attachment A: Basis for Denial of the Requested Planned Community District Attachment B: Revised Negative declaration for Alternate Project with attached comments (Exhibit 1) and responses to comments ,(Exhibit 2) Attachment C: Resolution amending Land Use Map Attachment D: Ordinance amending the Zoning Map Attachment E:Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes Attachment F:Planning and Transportation Commission staff report ¯ Attachment G:Initial Study for A&P Family Investments Office Project Attachment H:Applicant’s Correspondence including Development Program Statement and Development Schedule Applicant’s Planned Community Project Plans and Traffic Analysis (Council Members only) PREPARED BY: AMY FRENCH Senior Planner CIvIR:411:02 Page 5 of 6 DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGERAPPROVAL: EMILY rLSON Assistant City Manager COURTESY COPIES 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:411:02 Page 6 of 6 Attachment A BASIS FOR DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT FOR A 110,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON A 5.66 ACRE SITE* The requested Planned Community District proposed by A&P Family Investments is denied. The proposal to increase the amount of office permitted in the Baylands worsens the City’s jobs/housing imbalance and does not contribute to the desired diversity in the area. This is an area of serious traffic congestion and more office space is not a desirable use of the limited capacity in the area. The specific findings required under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.060 cannot be made: ao The first required finding is that. the project cannot be accomm0 .dated in any existing City zoning district. The office development is more intense than permitted under any LM Limited Industrial/Research Park districts. The proposal meets the development standards of the CD-C Commercial Downtown - Community district and OR Office Research District. However, these districts do not allow the full range of office uses desired by the applicant. bo The second required finding is that the development proposed will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable under existing zoning regulations. The applicant proposes one year of funding assistance for the Embarcadero Road shuttle, contributions toward a B aylands gateway feature, and construction of an on-site bus shelter and signal modifications. No existing zoning districts require these contributions. The City is presently completing traffic and transportation analyses that may support the adoption of a more comprehensive traffic mitigation program, which may include payment towards transit operations. A bus-shelter might be required by design review to assure appropriate pedestrian access. However, the project also increases by permitted office space on the site by approximately 51,000 square feet, while producing no new housing, on site or elsewhere, and providing no retail services in the area. Using the City’s standard formulas, this is an addition of approximately 200 new jobs, which would increase the City’s housing shortage by over 100 units. While the project would pay an impact fee which would partially fund the shortage of below-market rate housing units for the buildings workers, .there would be no contribution to the increased shortage of market rate housing. C0 The third required finding is that the uses permitted and the site development regulations would be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and. compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining site or within the general vicinity. An office building of 110,000 square feet is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goal L-5’s statement, "Land use changes should provide a more diverse mix of services and activities." Devoting this much space to office uses, above that already permitted by zoning, decreases opportunities for the desired diversity of uses. *Revised following the 9/4/02 Planning and Transportation Commission hearing Attachment RE VISED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION City of Palo Alto Department of Planning attd Community Environment Project Title:Re-designate and rezone the 1.84 acre parcel at 2300 East Bayshore ,2.Lead Agency Name and Address: ( 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: City of Palo Alto, Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Pal6 Alto, CA 94301 Amy French, Senior Planner (650) 329-2336 4.Project Location: 5.Application Numbers: 2300 East Bayshore 02-ZC-03, 02-EIA-11, 02-CPA-01 6.Project Sponsors’ Names and Addresses:City 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 "Research/Office Park," and (2) A Rezone of the 1.84 acre site to "LM(D)(3)" zone district from the existing Planned Commnnity zone (PC2785). The existing PC zone (PC2785) allows an 8,400 square foot restaurant. 10. Surrouhding Land Uses and Setting: The subject property is located on the corner 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 ownership as the subject property, 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 ~om 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 Negatiye 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 checldist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials X X Hydrol0gy/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 will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the 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 Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief expla nation 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 reducedan 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, "EarlieP Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5)Earlier analvsis 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 identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c)Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 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 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) b) c) d) Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,2 X X X Create a new source of substantiai light or glare which 1, 2 would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?X H.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 impa~cts 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) b) c) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 X X X 4 d) e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1,2 1,2 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) b) c) d) e) f) Have a substantial adverse effect, ei.ther 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 ofFish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by S6ction 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? In.terfere 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 any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? " Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state conservation plan? 1,3 1,3 ¯ 1,3 1,3 1, 2, 3 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) b) c) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1,3 (map L-7) 1,3 (map L-8) 1,3 (L-4, L-8) X X 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? SOUFCeS 1,3 (map L-8) Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) i) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a lcuown fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? see below ~3 (map N-10) X X X iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?2, 3 X (map 1~-5) iv) Landslides?3 (map X N-5) b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?1, 2 X e)X d) e) 2, 3 (map N-5), 8 2, 3 (map N-5), 8 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial rislcs to life or property? 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? X X VIII 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? 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources b) c) d) e) h) 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?i ~ : 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? 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? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources 1, 2, 9 1,2 2, 9 N/A N/A 1, 2, 3 0nap N-7) 1,3 (map N-7), 9 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated 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 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)? 2, 3 (map N-2) 1,2 b) 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? c) X 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?. Soul’ces 1, 2, 11 1, 2, 11 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Uoless Mitigated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?1, 2, 11 X g)N/A X 2, 3 (map N-6) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impe’de or redirect flood flows? 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- 8) X X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?3(maps X N-6, N- 8) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?N/A X l, 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? 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) e) Exposure of persons.to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance~ or applicable st.andards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to o,r 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? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 2,3 2, 3 2, 3 1,2 N/A Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 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, 3Induce 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)? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? N/A X c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the N/A X construction, of rePlacement housing elsewhere? 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources SonFces Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact 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 X X X No Impact X X XIV.RECREATION a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include, recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1,2 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 county congestion management agency for designated ~oads or highways? c)Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 2, 3, 8, 12 (maps T-7,.T- s) 2, 8, 12 N/A X X X X X 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible ~ uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies,.plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? SOUFCeS 1,2 1, 2, 9 1,2, 4 1, 2, 3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X 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) 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 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, 11 2, 10 2, 10 2, 3, 11 2, 11 d) e) g) X X X X 11 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) b) c) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environme’utal effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1, 2, 3 1-13 X X X SOURCE REFERENCES (Memoranda, analyses, reports, and assessments, noted below, pertain to project site): 4. 5. 6. 7 8 10. 11. 12. 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 ! 8 (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. City 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 development, 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 Adt. Mitigation Measures: None required. III. 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 enviromaaental 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 fi’om 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 proj ect 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 develgpment project would need to comply with City, State and Federal standards pertaining to water quality and waste discharge, and storm water run-off. It is not anticipated that deve!opment 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(D)(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 Connnercial" 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 ReviewBoard, 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 de,sign 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 until 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-imp0rtant 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 ot’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 staff for 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. Therefore, theoretically, the Alternate Project includes the potential for a 64-employee increase on the restaurant site. Mitigation Measures: None required. 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 environmenta! analysis. Mitigation Measures: None required. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed rezoning and land use re-designation would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Mitigation Measures: None required. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Theproposed 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 enTironment. 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 degignation 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. I5 Exhibit 1: Email Comments regarding Negative Declaration (attachment to Revised Negative Declaration) ~,French, Am~Y- ................................ . From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Joy Ogawa [joy.ogawa@usa.net] Monday, September 23, 2002 9:46 AM amy_french @city. palo-alto.ca, us steve_emslie@city, palo-alto.ca, us 2300 East Bayshore Road Joy Ogawa 2305 Yale Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 September 23, 2002 Amy French Senior Planner City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo AIto,.CA 94301 RE: 2300 East Bayshore Road [02-CPA-01, 02-EIA-03, 02-PC-01] Dear Amy, I have been out of town since September 13, 2002. I just returned and found a phone message from you in which you stated that the comment period for the draft negative declaration for the above-referenced project at 2300 East Bayshore Road ended on September 18. However, I had been relying on the dates contained within the staff report for the September 4, 2002 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, which states the following on pages 12 to 13: "The public review period to receive comments on the draft document is set to begin on August 28 and .will close on September 26, 2002, prior to the October 15, 2002 City Council review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment." I recall specifically asking you at the conclusion of the September 4, PTC meeting when the public review period for the draft negative declaration ended. You replied that you could not recall at the moment, but that whatever was stated in the document was probably the correct date. In any case, below are some comments that I have put together regarding the draft negative declaratio.n. As I indicated in our conversation of September 4, 2002, I have concerns about the draft negative declaration for the staff alternative project. 1. The Project Description Is Inaccurate and Misleading. My understanding is that the project is for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, changing the designation of the 1.84 acre parcel from Service Commercial to Research/Office, coupled with a rezone from Planned Community for an 8400 square foot restaurant to LM(D)(3). These changes would allow for a maximum floor area of 24,315 square feet of office development for this parcel, an increase form the currently allowed 8400 square foot restaurant. According to Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth’s comments at the September 4; 2002 Planning and Transportation Commission hearing, a merging of a rezoned LM(D)(3) parcel with the adjacent 3.82 acre parcel has not been applied for as of yet, and is not presently under consideration. Therefore, I contend that the "project" description should not include a 73,932 square foot office building, because the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change to LM(D)(3) do not allow for a 73,932 square foot office building absent a merging of parcels, which is not under consideration at this time. What the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zone change do create is the potential for this 1.84 acre parcel to be merged with the adjacent 3.82 acre parcel, and if merged, the potential for a maximum 73,932 square foot office building on the combined 5.66 acre parcel. The current zoning allows for a maximum of approximately 49,920 square foot office building on the 3.82 acre parcel. Therefore, the environmental analysis should be looking at the impacts of (1) a maximum 24,315 square foot office building on the rezoned 1.84 parcel, compared to the maximum 8400 square foot restaurant allowed under current zoning and (2) a maximum 73,932 square foot office building IF the rezoned 1.84 acre parcel is merged with the adjacent 3.82 acre parcel, compared to the 8400 square foot restaurant plus existing 33,200 square foot office building or plus the 49,920 square foot maximum permitted under current zoning. A Service Commercial zone is allowed a maximum FAR of 0.5, and therefore, if the 1.84-acre parcel were rezoned to Service Commercial from PC (which would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation), a maximum 40,525 square foot office building would be permitted. However, that is not the way the parcel is currently zoned. Although the Comprehensive Plan designation for this parcel is Service Commercial, the parcel is currently zoned Planned Community for an 8400 square foot restaurant. At the September 4, 2002 public hearing, one o~ the Planning Commissioners, I believe Commissioner Cassel, made comments that indicated a misunderstanding of the current zoning. The Commissioner’s comments indicated that, if the 1.84 acre parcel were not rezoned to LM(D)(3), the property could be developed to a higher FAR under current zoning. That is not the case, because the PC zoning limits the use to an 8400 square foot restaurant. In order to achieve a higher FAR than the existing restaurant building, a rezone to a Service Commercial Zone would be necessary. 2. The Draft Negative Declaration Makes Unsubstantiated and Inaccurate Conclusions. The draft Negative Declaration makes statements that a 73,932 square foot office building would have no significant impacts on air quality, on population and housing and on transportation/traffic. These statements are not supported by substantial evidence. In any case, as I have discussed above, the impacts that should be addressed in the Initial Study are the impacts of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone, not the impacts of a 73,932 square foot project which has not been applied for, and which would not be possible unless the parcels are merged, which has not been requested. I believe that the conclusions made by the initial study are more properly framed in language such as the following: The maximum buildout that would be permitted under the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning change will/will not have significant impacts compared to current zoning. Sincerely, Joy Ogawa Page 1 of 3 French, Amy From:Angelica Volterra [avolterra@batnet.com] Sent:Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:44 PM To:amy_french@city.palo-alto.ca.us Cc:steve_emslie@city, palo-alto.ca, us Subject: 2300 East Bayshore Road Dear Amy: 1 am writing to express my concerns regarding conclusions reached in Staff’s "Environmental Checklist and Negative Declaration" for the "Alternate Project" for the 5.66 acre site at 2300 East Bayshore. It is my impression that in this document, Staff has prematurely and possibly incorrectly concluded that the proposed project would have either a "Less than significant impact’’ or "No impact" on a number of issues including but not necessarily limited to air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, and transportation/traffic. Also, the findings under "Mandatory Findings of Significance" of "No impact" with respect to the "quality of the environment" and cumulative impacts are, in my opinion, not sufficiently substantiated. My discussion includes a number of comments that I made at the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting held on September 4th, 2002, including concerns that I expressed regarding potential significant environmental impacts of both projects that were discussed that_evening, impacts which are not in my opinion adequately addressed in either the "Environmental Checklist and Negative Declaration" for Staff’s proposal or the "Draft Environmental Checklist" of the proposed Peery-Arrillaga Project. The 2300 E. Bayshore site is located in an area designated as an AE 8 Flood Zone. According to the City of Palo Alto’s website ("Public Works Engineering-Flood Zone AES"), this AE 8 Zone designation describes a large Zone most of which was once "tidal marsh and wetlands, but many years ago diked salt evaporation ponds were built in what is now the Baylands" and these salt pond levees protect much of this zone from high bay tides. However, "FEMA does not consider these levees to be adequate protection from the sort of high tide event that has a 100 year probability of occurring, and assumes that when the levees fail the area in the AE 8 zone will be flooded by salt water to an elevation of 8 feet above sea level". Thus, in my opinion, any development that will result in a change in the footprint of the existing buildings which both proposed Projects would, would potentially "place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would redirect flood flows." This could potentially have significant impacts on the surrounding area and region. 2.I am concerned about the jobs/housing imbalance to which both projects would contribute. I also do not understand Staff’s conclusion on page 12 of the Staff Report that the Alternate Project’s "increase of 320 office jobs for the net office area" "is potentially 520 less office jobs than the Peery-Arrillaga Office Project." o With respect to trafficand transportation, I am very concerned about the impacts of the addition of large amounts of traffic, which both proposals would in effect cause, to the area and especially to an intersection, the Embarcadero/East Bayshore intersection, that is already a problematic intersection. Although my comments address the Peery-Arrillaga Office Project, I believe that Staff’s proposed Project would also generate significant amounts of traffic and that the same issues and concerns regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis that are discussed below would apply to trip generation statistics and intersection levels of service with respect to Staff’s Project as well. I therefore believe that it is imperative that a full traffic impact analysis be performed to examine the potential traffic impacts of Staff’s proposed Project. I only had the opportunity while at the Planning Department on the afternoon of September 4th, to briefly review the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Peery Arrillaga Project that was prepared by Fehr and Peers Associates, but in the short time that I had to review this lengthy document, I found a number of issues that concerned me about the Analysis. 1019102 Page 2 of 3 I believe that the methodology that is used to calculate the trip generation statistics and to arrive at the conclusion that the Peery Arrillaga Project would only generate a total of 16 total daily net new trips, 98 total AM peak hour trips, and 37 total PM peak hour trips, etc. is flawed. (See Table 8, "Project Trip Generation Estimates," page 25.) In the first place~ I question the inclusion of the theoretical project trip generation figures of the "existing office buildings" in the calculation. It is my understanding from speaking with a representative of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, reportedly the last occupant of these buildings, that the Palo Alto Medical Foundation vacated these buildings in September of 2000. Therefore, I believe that it would be more accurate to eliminate these figures from the calculations (i.e. to not subtract them from the trip generation estimates for the proposed Watson Court Office Project). Also, while Carol Jansen’s memo of August 1, 2002 states that "a change from service commercial/retail on the former Scott’s Seafood restaurant parcel is appropriate given the lack of retail viability in that area," (an idea that I believe she reiterated in statements that she made at the meeting on September 4th), the Traffic Impact Analysis includes theoretical trip generation statistics for a presumably viable restaurant, a fact which would seem to contradict Ms. Jansen’s assertions of the lack of retail viability for the site. Also I have had the opportunity to briefly review the Transportation Impact Analysis included in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the University Palms Project in East Palo Alto. This project is a proposed retail and office development north of Donohoe Street between University Avenue and Cooley Avenue in East Palo Alto. This traffic Analysis was also prepared by Fehr and Peers Associates. In this Analysis, the East Bayshore Embarcadero Road intersection is reported as operating at unacceptable or F levels of service during the PM peak hour under Existing Conditions (or "substantially worse than calculated"; see Table 3, page 15) based on observations of high traffic volumes. (Of importance is the fact the "field observations of current intersection operations were conducted during AM and PM peak hours to verify calculated operations and to identify locations with existing queuing problems... Heavy congestion and excessive delays were.., observed on all approaches at the East Bayshore Road/Embarcadero Road intersection" during the PM peak hour. Although this intersection was calculated to operate at a LOS of D, "when demand exceeds capacity, queues from downstream intersections block intersections or excessive queues form because of insufficient ’green time.’ During these conditions, traffic counts do not reflect the total demand during .the peak hour. This is important to note because low traffic counts can result in calculated levels of service that do not reflect actual delays." Accordingly, this intersection was estimated to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour, "even though the calculation results...state otherwise." (See page 14). This intersection is also projected to operate at unacceptable or F levels during the PM peak hour under Background Conditions based on observations. This intersection is projected to operate at unacceptable.or F levels of service under cumulative conditions during both the AM and the PM peak hours. However,-in the Traffic Analysis prepared for the proposed Peers Arrillaga project, the same intersection’s level of service under existing conditions for the PM peak hour is listed as a LOS of E, for Background Conditions with IKEA also as an LOS of E, and for Background plus IKEA plus the proposed Peers Arrillaga Project also as a LOS of E. It is difficult to reconcile these findings given the LOS findings based on direct observations cited in the University Palms Project Draft SEIR. Also, the Edgewood Center is currently under consideration for possible redevelopment. Because there is not an. approved Project at this site, this Analysis does not take into consideration possible effects on this intersection of a revitalized Center. However, revitalization of this site would no doubt also result in further degeneration of and negative impacts on this intersection. (The Draft EIR for the Edgewood Redevelopment Project that was previously circulated did include this intersection among the study intersections.) Given the existing levels of traffic at this intersection and the intersection’s current configuration, it is a very p~oblematic intersection. I believe that it would be very important for there to be a careful and accurate traffic impact analysis prepared that would analyze Staff’s proposed Project given the potential significance of the addition of traffic to this very sensitive area. 10/9/02 Page 3 of 3 With respect to Air Quality issues, neither of the environmental checklists finds findings of significance relative to Air Quality criteria for the proposed projects. However, the "Air Quality Impact Analysis for the Proposed University Palms Project" in East Palo Alto, (see page 11) states that this University Palms Project is "in an area undergoing rapid re-development. The combined emissions of the Project and past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would greatly exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for regional air pollutants. Even though new emissions associated with the project do not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for single projects, these emissions, when considered together with recent and future development in the project area, would have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality." I believe that it would be very important to study the effects of Staffs proposed Project cumulatively with other projects in the area to ensure that the cumulative effects do not result in significant air quality impacts. 5.I believe that the potential impacts of Project-related construction at this site on noise, traffic and air quality issues deserve careful attention and study. 6.Also, in my opinion, issues related to cumulative impacts (in addition to impacts on air quality mentioned above) such as related to traffic, noise, etc. are inadequately addressed in the "Environmental Checklist." I believe that a number of the comments and concerns with respect to hydrology and water quality and geology and soils madg by Emily Renzel at the September 4th meeting may apply as well to Staff’s proposed Project (and not just to the Peery-Arrillaga Project) and warrant careful study and analysis with respect to this Project. And finally, this site is located near the Baylands, a sensitive environment with very precious biological resources, and therefore extreme care should be taken with respect to any potential negative impacts on this area. In my opinion, a project of the magnitude of Staff’s proposed Project, given the environmentally sensitive location, may have the potential "to degrade the quality of the environment." believe that it would be imperative, therefore, to ensure that any potential significant impacts at this site receive thorough review. Thank you very much, Amy, for your consideration. Sincerely, Angelica Volterra 10/9/02 Betten, Zariah . __ .........- ............ From: Sent: To: Subject: Marshmama@aol.com Wednesday, September 04, 2002 2:52 PM zariah_betten@city.pa o-alto, ca. us Peery Project - tonite’s Commission meeting Hi Zariah! I hope you get this in time to print copies for commissioners at their places tonite. Thanks. Emily Renzel September 4, 2002 Dear Chair Bialson and Members of the Commission: I have a Board Meeting this evening and may not arrive in time for public comment, so I am writing to urge you to deny the application for a Planned Community (PC) zone to allow 105,000 square feet of office building where approximately 70,000 square feet would othe~vise be allowed under LM (D) (3). I agree completely with the staff finding that the PC is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and that the on-site benefits do not ~varrant aPC. I ~vould also urge you to evaluate whether traffic conditions at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Frontage Road might warrant considering the even more restrictive zoning of LM(D)(5). Over the years, under Design Revie~v, there has been a lot of care taken to keep development low key and compatible with park and open space uses in the baylands as well as the scenic designation of Embarcadero Road east of Bayshore Freeway. I hope you will take these factors into consideration as you evaluate this project. The Embarcadero Road/101 interchange and East Bayshore Frontage Road area are currently operating at Level of Se~wice E or F - especially during peak hours. This condition is apt to worsen significantly once the IKEA project is completed in East Palo Alto. It may be further complicated by new arrangements for the International School drop off and pick up (which already create problems in the area). It makes no sense at all to add any peak hour trips to this intersection. I concur with the effort to get a bicycle path link from the 101 overpass to Watson Court regardless of which zone gets applied here.j Policy L-5 of the Comprehensive Plan says, "Maintain the scale and character of the City and avoid land uses which are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their scale and size. " This PC is a perfect example of the type of project to which this policy is directed. The PC includes underground parking. The map N-5 in the Comprehensive Plan shows this site in an area subject to high risk of liquifaction. ,Generally areas with high risk of liquifaction have significant shallow groundwater. (This is confirmed by a 1972 Geologic Risk map of SCVWD that shows a shallow liquifaction risk in the general area) This means that construction of underground parking will no doubt require significant pumping to stay dry and may in fact interfere with shallow groundwater flow to the Bay. If the water flowing through shallow acquifers is diverted by pumping, those acquifers will collapse and land downgradient fl’om this project (toward the Bay) will ~ve{y likely subside, impacting existing development along Embarcadero. (Impacts may be improperly assessed in the Negative Declaration VI (iii) and VIII (b).) It goes without saying that our standard housing mitigation formula will not mitigate the extra demand for housing that would result from this PC. I support the Staff recommendation and would even prefer the more restrictive LM(D)(5) zone at this location, so that traffic is minimized and the character of the development will support the low key entrance to our Baylands. Sincerely, Emily M. Renzel 1056 Fores~ Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-321-4165 EXHIBIT 2 Response to Comments on Draft Negative Declaration dated August 28, 2002 2300 East Bayshore Road Comments Received: Email from Joy Ogawa dated September 23, 2002, regarding the project description and conclusions contained in the Draft Negative Declaration. Comment: The project description is inaccurate and misleading- it should not include a 73,932 square foot office building. Re sp ons e: The project description in the Revised Negative Declaration has revised to describe only the 1.84 acre parcel proposed for rezoning. been bo Comment: One of the Planning Commissioners (Cassel) indicated a misunderstanding of the current zoning, that "if the 1.84 acre property were not rezoned LM(D)(3), the property could be developed to a higher FAR under current zoning. That is not the case, because the PC zoning limits the use to an 8400 square foot restaurant. In order to achieve a higher FAR than the existing restaurant building, a rezone to a Service Commercial Zone would be necessary." Response: The existing PC zoning on the 1.84 acre parcel restricts the use of the property to an 8,400 square foot restaurant. The existing Comprehensive Plan designation; Service Commercial, would allow an FAR up to 0.4:1 (32,420 square feet) if the City Council approved a zone change or amendment to PC 2785 .Planning and Transportation Commissioner Cassell stated, "The reason I would like to see (the zone) changed is I don’t want to see it come back as .4 FAR ...Whereas if you make it .3 at this point with the LM(D)(3), that issue has been resolved." Comment: The draft Negative Declaration makes unsubstantiated and inaccurate conclusions, specifically, regarding impacts on air quality, population and housing, and transportation/traffic. 021010 syn 0091029 3_ Response: Ms. Ogawa provides no substantial evidence to support her assertions and therefore no specific response is possible. do Comment: The conclusions made by the initial study are more properly framed in language such as the following: The maximum buildout that would be permitted under the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning change will/will not have significant impacts compared to current zoning. Response: Maximum buildout on the 1.84 acre parcel under the land use and zoning designations proposed in the Alternate Project would be 15,645 square feet greater than the existing floor area on the parcel. This must be compared not only to the existing 8400 square feet allowed by PC 2785 but also to the 0.4:1 FAR allowed under the existing Service Commercial Comprehensive Plan designation. The Land Use and Planning section of the Revised Negative Declaration has been revised. Email from Angelica Volterra dated September 24, 2002, regarding flood zone, jobs/housing imbalance, traffic and transportation, hydrology, water quality, geology and soils, and biological resources.. Comment: Staff has prematurely and possibly incorrectly concluded that the proposed project would have either a "less than significant impact" or "no impact" on a number of issues including but not necessarily limited to air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, and transportation/traffic. Response: See responses to the particular comments below. The revised Negative Declaration notes the three areas potentially affected by the alternate projec[ as Land Use/Planning, Transportation/Traffic and Population/Housing, but impacts in these areas are less than significant. Air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and noise are areas that would experience no impact from the proposed Alternate Project, since there is no development project reviewed in the associated environmental analysis. The Revised Negative Declaration includes text under each of these categories to address the reason for checklist answers. No Comment: The findings under "Mandatory Findings of Significance" of "No impact" with respect to the "quality of the environment" and cumulative impacts are not sufficiently substantiated. 021010 syn 0091029 Response: The original Negative Declaration’s Mandatory Findings of Significance cited "No Impact" from the project with respect to the "potential to degrade the quality of the environment" and "cumulatively considerable impacts". The Revised Negative Declaration checklist notes "Less than Significant Impact" with respect to these findings. The text in the Explanation for Checklist Responses has been revised. Comment: Both projects could potentially have significant impacts on the surrounding area and region because a change in the footprint of existing buildings would potentially "place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would redirect flood flows." Response: The Alternate Project does not include a change in the building footprint on the site. Redevelopment under the proposed land use designation and zoning would not necessarily result in a building having a larger footprint. Any redevelopment project would be evaluated for potential effects on the environment in a separate, site-specific environmental document. eo Comment: "I am concerned about the jobs/housing imbalance and do not understand Staff’s conclusion on page 12 of the Commission staff report regarding increased jobs for net new office area." Response: This comment is about the Planning and Transportation Commission staff report. The comparison which is applicable to environmental review of the Alternate Project is the number of jobs for restaurant use of the property, when active, versus the number of potential jobs for a development that could be-approved under the proposed LM(D)(3) zoning and Research/Office Park land use designation. Staff’s analysis on page 12 overestimated the increase in jobs associated with both the A&P Family Investments project and the Alternate Project, based upon incorrect formulas. The standard estimate used by City staff for jobs created by development is 4 jobs per 1,000 square feet of commercial area. With this formula, the restaurant when active, would have 32 employees, and the maximum potential office on the same site under the proposed LM(D)(3) zoning would have 96 employees, or. an increase of 64 employees. Any redevelopment project would be analyzed with the correct formulas and information about actual employee numbers when the restaurant use was active. Comment: Ms. Volterra is concerned about impacts of additional traffic to the area, especially to the Embarcadero/East Bayshore intersection, and 021010 syn 0091029 believes it is imperative that .a full traffic impact analysis be performed to examine the potential traffic impacts of staff’s proposed project. Response: A traffic analysis has been done for the A&P Family Investments project, a 110,000 square foot office building on a merged, 5.66 acre site. The Negative Declaration does not analyze the A&P Family Investments project. The Alternate Project does not include a development project on the 1.84 acre site. Any development project meeting the development standards and density of land use and zoning designations proposed by the Alternate Project would receive a separate, site-specific environmental review. Therefore, a full traffic impact analysis is not necessary for the Alternate Project. Comment: Regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis submitted for the Peery-Arrillaga project, Ms. Volterra questions the inclusion of the theoretical project trip generation figures of the "existing office buildings" in the calculation, and believes it would be more accurate to eliminate these figures from the calculations Response: This Negative Declaration does not analyze the A&P Family Investments Office Project. Any redevelopment project meeting the LM(D)(3) zoning of the Alternate Project would be accompanied by an analysis of traffic impacts, from the project. Therefore, no response is required for the Alternate Project. However, staff has provided the response below to clarify how the City views occupancy of existing buildings when calculating the increase in traffic that a new building would produce. California law requires that the City, when analyzing impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act, use as a baseline normal, permitted activity on the site, not the intensity at a particular time. Intensity of activity fluctuates, while the permitted level of activity is more stable. California law favors the use of a baseline that assumes occupancy of all s_pace in the existing building(s), not just the portion actually rented in 2000, or on a particular day in 2000. See, for example, Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 238.In terms of trip generation, giving credit for existing land uses is consistent with the City of Palo Alto and County of Santa Clara (VTA) methodology to determine the number of vehicle trips generated by a proposed project. Existing land uses have the potential to be re-occupied and would therefore have the ability to generate traffic. For the intersection operations analysis, the credit is applied and the total trip generation is used to determine whether or not the proposed project would result in a significant impact. 021010 syn 0091029 Comment: It is difficult to reconcile the traffic analysis findings for the A&P Family Investments project prepared by Fehr and Peers, given the LOS findings based on direct observations cited in the University Palms Project (in East Palo Alto) Draft SEIR, also prepared by Fehr and Peers. Response: This Negative Declaration does not analyze the A&P Family . Investments Office Project, so no response is required for the Alternate Project. However, it should be clear that the City has always reported the Embarcadero Road/East Bayshore intersection as having Level of Service (LOS) E, and the same incremental impact standard would apply whether the intersection is LOS E or LOS F. Regarding the A&P Family Investments project, the applicant’s traffic consultant states, "The traffic analysis was conducted using the methodology for the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County, which includes using field implemented signal operations data for the Existing Conditions level of service analysis. Field implemented signal operations data is defined as how the intersection currently operates in the field, including cycle length, phasing and signal timings. The University Pahns Project was conducted using the methodology for the City of East Palo Alto and San Mateo County, which included developing optimized intersection signal timings for the Existing Conditions level of service analysis. Optimized signal timings signal timings are defined as how the intersection would be operated to reduce delays and congestion. Because of this major difference of how the operations analysis was conducted, the two studies identified different Existing PM Peak Hour level of service conditions. In addition, when comparing optimized signal timing analysis and field observations of how the intersections actually operate, the study completed for the City of East Palo Alto determined that six intersections were , "estimated to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour", not just East Bayshore Road / Embarcadero Road. What the analysis for the University Palms Project does show is that signal timing and coordination improvements at East Bayshore Road / Embarcadero Road and along East Bayshore Road would improve the current situation. The Peery Arriltaga project proposes to provide funding to perform a detailed study and improve traffic flow and level of service conditions along East Bayshore Road." No Comment: The traffic analysis does not take into consideration possible effects from a revitalized Edgewood Center on the East Bayshore Road/Embarcadero Road intersection. 021010 syn 0091029 5 Response: This Negative Declaration does not analyze the A&P Family Investments Office Project, so no response is required for the Alternate Project. The Traffic Impact Study prepared for the A&P Family Investments office project included other major projects in the area at the time when the.2300 East Bayshore project was first proposed. Based on a meeting with the City of Palo Alto Transportation staff, it was determined that because the Edgewood Redevelopment Project was very preliminary, it would not be included in the Background Conditions Analysis. The Edgewood Redevelopment Project is still "very preliminary" because no plan has been developed to date, and there is uncertain probability of a project being approved at that site. If a plan emerges for a revitalization of the Edgewood Center and the plan is sufficiently supported, it would then become a probable future project. Comment: It would be very important to study the effects of Staff’s proposed Project cumulatively with other projects in the area.to ensure that the cumulative effects do not result in significant air. quality impacts. Response: See the air quality section of the Revised ND.Staff has checked the "less than significant impact" box and included a statement supporting that choice.. 021010 syn 0091029 Comment: The potential impacts from project-related construction at this site on noise, traffic and air quality issues deserve careful attention and study. Response: Comment noted; no response required, Comment: Issues related to cumulative impacts (in addition to impacts on air quality mentioned above) such as related to traffic, noise, etc. are inadequately addressed in the "Environmental Checklist." Response: Comment noted, no response required. The Revised Negative Declaration and Environmental Checklist for the Alternate Project adequately addresses cumulative impacts. Comment: A number of the comments and concerns with respect to hydrology and water quality and geology and soils made by Emily Renzel at the September 4th meeting may apply as well to Staffs proposed Project (and not just to the Peery-Arrillaga Project) and warrant careful study and analysis with respect to this Project. Response: See Comments and Responses in #3 below. Comment: This site is located near the Baylands, a sensitive environment with very precious biological resources, and therefore extreme care should be taken with respect to any potential negative impacts on this area. In my opinion, a project of the magnitude of Staffs proposed Project, given the environmentally sensitive location, may have the potential "to degrade the quality of the environment." Response: This comment is noted, but no further response is required. The Alternate Project does not include a development project, only the potential 15,645 square feet of net new floor area under the proposed Research Office Park designation and LMD3 zoning on the 1.84 acre. Again, a separate, si’te specific._~environmental analysis would be prepared for any development project on the parcel or merged parcels. o Comments made by Emily Renzel in an email received and presented during Planning Commission hearing on September 4, 2002. go Comment: I urge you to evaluate whether traffic conditions at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Frontage Road might warrant considering the even more restrictive zoning of LM(D)(5). It makes no sense at all to add any peak hour trips to this intersection. I would prefer the more restrictive LM(D)(5) zoning at this location. Response: The minimum acreage for the LM(D)(5) zone district is 5 acres. The Alternate Project is a 1:84 acre parcel. The City Council only has the ability to. rezone the 1.84 acre parcel to the more restrictive LM(D)(5) zoning if the 1.84 acre site is merged withthe adjacent 3.82 acre parcel under the same ownership to create a 5.66 acre site. No Comment: Impacts may be improperly assessed in the Negative Declaration VI (iii) and VIII (b) regarding water flows and risk of aquifer collapse with construction of underground parking. Response: The Alternate Project does not include an underground parking garage and the associate Negative Declaration does not analyze the A&P Family Investments project. If an undergrouncl parking garage were proposed with a redevelopment project meeting the proposed land use designation and zoning standards, it would be evaluated in a separate, site- specific environmental analysis. 021010 syn 0091029 Attachment C RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAL0 ALTO AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE PAL0 ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF A 1.84 ACRE PARCEL AT 2300 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD FROM "SERVICE COMHERCIAL"TO "RESEARCH/OFFICE PARK" WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission ("Commission"), after a duly noticed public hearing on September 5, 2002, 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 parcel, from "Service Commercial" to "Research/Office Park"; and WHEREAS, the Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on October 15, 2002, and has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project and all other relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE, as follows: SECTION I. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare of Palo 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 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to designate 2300 East Bayshore, a 1.84 acre parcel, "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 complete and exclusive opportunity for the exercise o2 the referendum power pursuant to the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Constitution of the State of California. A referendum petition filed after the effective date shall be rejected as untimely. " 021010 syn 0091142 SECTION 4. use designation environment. The Council hereby finds that this new land will have no significant effect on the INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM’: Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED:. Hayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Chief Transportation Official 021010 syn 0091142 /Service Commercml Research/Office Park \\ Attachment D ORDINANCE ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF A 1.84 ACRE PARCEL AT 2300 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD FROM "PLANNED COMMUNITY" TO LM(D) (3) "LIMITED INDUSTRIAL WITH COMBINING DISTRICTS" SECTION i. The City Council finds as follows: A.The Planning and Transportation Commission "Commission"), after a duly noticed public hearing on September 5, 2002, has recommended that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("Council") rezone the 1.84 acre site at 2300 East Bayshore Road to~ "Limited Industrial with Combining Districts’i., LM(D) (3); and B.The Commission recognize 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 Shopplng Center) indicates that restaurant use, in this case, did not benefit well enough from the employment center; and C.The Commission has recelved 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; and D.The Commission find that a change of district boundaries to LM(D) (3) would be in accord with the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal code, in that prior to the adoption of Planned Community Zone PC 2785, the previous designation on the parcel was LMD, the site meets the minimum area requirement, is adjacent an surrounded by the LM(D) (3). District, and LM(D) (3) uses are appropriate in this location; and E.The Commission find that rezoning the parcel to the LM(D) (3) zone is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, if amended pursuant to the accompanying resolution, in that the Easy Bayshore Employment District is primarily zoned LM(D) (3), that the Park", and LM(D) (3) zoning is consistent with the "Research/Office Park" designation; and 021010 syn 0091141 F.The Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on October 15, 2002, and has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project and all other relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 2. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to place 2300 East Bayshore, a 1.84 acre parcel, within the "Limited Industrial with Combining Districts, LM(D) (3) Zone." SECTION 3;~ The Council hereby~finds that this rezoning will have no significant effect on the environment. SECTION 4. This ordinance Shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Hayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment Chief Transportation Official 021010 syn 0091141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ,26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission September 4, 2002 Verbatim Minutes Attachment E DRAFT EXCERPT NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearings: 2300 East B ayshore Road*: 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 parldng 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 redistricting of the 5.66 acre site to a Planned Community(PC)and; 3) a merging of a 3:82 parcel with the 1.84 acreparcel to create a single 5.66 acre parcel. EnvironmentalAssessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. File Nos.: 02-CPA-01, 02-EIA-0, 02-PC-01. Ms. Amy French, Senior Planner: Good evening. I am the project manager reviewing the project and we have for you a Staff Report that describes the project as proposed by the applicant, which is a Planned Community 110,000 square foot office. This would be a change from the existing uses on the site, one of which is a restaurant that was first done with a PC back in 1974 and an existing office building, both of which would be demolished and a new building constructed. This proposal would require approval of both a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the restaurant parcel/site to meet the desired office by the applicant and it would also require a rezoning of the restaurant parcel/site. The applicant proposes to merge two parcels into one parcel. We are recommending denial of the PC as proposed. We are recommending that an LM(D)(3) designation be applied to the restaurant parcel!site and that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment be brought forward to Council for.the Research!Office Park designation on that restaurant parcel!site. The reason why we are suggesting LM(D)(3) be applied there is it would be consistent with the adjoining LM(D)(3)parcel and with the parcelsin the area, LM(D)(3) is a typical zoning. The reason why we are requesting the designation of the Research/Office Park is this would allow office use on the parcel and it would allow other uses as well. And the only problem with that is that you have to get a conditional use permit to get some uses including retail. The benefit of not doing something like a CS Zone consistent with the underlying CS comp plan designation is the benefit in terms of restricting the building on the site, in that the CS Zone would permit up to 50 feet height limit, but the LM(D)(3) would limit that height to 35 feet. And there’s also a more restrictive lot coverage and more restrictive FAR with the LM(D)(3) designation. I can address questions that have been raised during the day today about alternative zones for the site and uses by several of the planning commissioners. Basically LM(D)(5), which is another option, does require a minimum of five acres, which this site as a merged parcel would meet. It would restrict the site coverage to 15% less coverage than the " LM(D)(3) zone would allow. Right now under the existing zoning they would be allowed .3 on the existing LM(D)3 zone office parcel. On the restaurant parcel, under the PC, the PC City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 restaurant could go, with an amendment approved by council, could go up to a .4 FAR. The .3 FAR that the Staff recommends with the LM(D)(3) would be more limiting than .4 on that restaurant parcel. Again that was kind of trying to describe the differences between the LM(D)(3) and LM(D)(5) and the PC that exists on the parcel now. We have a copy of the existing PC for the restaurant here - let’s look at it..Back in 1974 when we did these PCs they weren’t anywhere near the depth and detail that we do now for our PCs. Basically just allowed restaurant and cocktail lounge as the use. It didn’t - as typically with PCs it does -reference the plan, which is what is allowed. To do anything different than what’s there, they have to come back with a PC Amendment, to increase the size of the building, for instance. Another question that came up, under an LM(D)(3) or LM(D)(5), under straight zoning laws, it would be a site and design review, that’s because of the D overlay. On the existing parcel, office parcel, and the restaurant parcel, that’s recommended for LM(D)(3) by staff, the process would be site and design in front of the Planning and Transportation Commission then to ARB and then going to Council so there would not be a second Planning Commission meeting between the ARB and Council, which is what the PC district would have them do. Just to go back a little bit, Staff has been in discussion with the applicant since the year 2000, I think it was summer of 2000. We have always had conc_erns with the size of the project and the idea of public benefits, trying to work to try and find some kind of public benefits or to help them identify public benefits that might be on site. It’s has been very difficult.to help with that and find something that could meet our expectations. We have had a problem with them, and a problem with the size 0fthe office building. Now it was theapplicant’s idea to come in with a preliminary ARB application at the time, two years ago, and we have a process that they can do that, so they have been in front of the ARB meeting. They were approaching it fi:om a design standpoint, hoping to come up with a design that everyone would like and then add their public benefits package, hoping that we would like it so much we would go ahead and send it up through the process for PC. Spealdng off the cuff here, the recommendation as set forth in the Staff Report is ldnd of detailed. What we do recommend is that the Planning and Transportation Cormnission go ahead and recommend approval of the alternate project, is what we’re calling it, which is comprised of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Research Office Park. and rezoning of the 1.84 acre parcel, wl~ich is the restaurant parcel, in LM(D)(3) zone, and a merging of two parcels to create the larger 5.6 acre parcel, and adoption of a Negative Declaration for those actions (being the Comp Plan Amendment and the LM(D)(3)). Now as far as findings for a lot merger we have two basic findings, which is planning for c’onsistency with the Comp Plan and Title 21. There is no detrimental iinpact. It is not necessary to forward to the City Council along with the Comp Plan Amendment and the rezoning, if that were to come through as well. So that is not necessary at this time. But we can answer questions about keep them merged or splitting them. We can answer questions about merging, or FARs. I’ll stop there. Chair Bialson: I think Wytme would like to add something. Ms. Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney: There are a couple of points I wanted to emphasize. One is that this is a somewhat unusual recommendation in front of you. The application asked for a Comprehensive Plan change and zoning change that would increase the City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 intensity of development permitted on the combined sites. Staff supports the Comprehensive Plan change essentially that would allow office on the site but not the requested increase in intensity of development beyond that. So the Staff has prepared two environmental declarations. One is for the applicant’s request and another for the Staff’s rec0mmendation. So should you decide to recommend approval of either of those alternatives then we will also ask you to approve that proposed environmental analysis. So there are two there are two separate environmental analyses so there are two separate environmental reviews, one for each of those proposals. The other thing that the City Attorney asked me to remind you of is that the PC process essentially is designed to allow developments that in themselves are of public benefit. It’s not their cash contributions to offsite programs or whatever that justify it, but that the changing of the City’s standard regulations make possible a project that as a whole creates is of a public benefit. Of course there can be related aspects of the project which may be offsite but the basic notion is that project of itself is a better project with more public benefits than our existing zoning would permit. So the first question is is the proposed project a public benefit in itself. Ms. French: I would to add to that and perhaps Lisa would too, as far as the Negative Declaration’s that’s proposed for the alternate project, which is not the PC. That in itself, Staff feels it is a complete document. The second environmental document is an initial study, I’m calling a draft initial study actually, because we have not completed our environmental review thoroughly because we didn’t have information from the applicant. We are not ready to go with that actual document any farther than here. If we were to go forward, which would mean going to the ARB, we would have to really have to work harder on getting fullest disclosure in the document, before the document would go forward. Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: The reason for not completing that environmental review is that we are recommending denial of the project and if you are recommending denial of the project as proposed, we’re not required to complete this CEQA review. So that is another reason why you won’t see that complete analysis done. One of the Commissioners had questions about the underground parking garage and potential environmental impacts of that. We have not completed that and we do expect that if this were to move forward with a recommendation for approval and it was to move forward to the ARB we would need to complete that analysis. So that is not complete. I do not believe that there are many underground parldng garages in that area. We can look and see if there are any but I don’t think there are. Also a question was asked about how many affordable housing units the $941,000 in impact fees might provide. It was somewhere between three and four affordable housing units for that amount. Also there were some questions asked about the traffic analysis that has been done today and Joe Kott is here to discuss some of those more detailed questions if you have them Chair Bialson: Does Joe have anything to say before we ask any questions? Mr. Joe Kott, Chief Transportation Official: No. Chair Bialson: We will bring it back to the Commissioners and start with Karen. City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 4i 42. 43 44 45 Commissioner Holman: Just one question for Wyrme on the issue of if we would move forward with the proposal of Staff with the alternate project but we don’t feel like the environmental analysis is complete could we do that in a separate motion with the second environmental list that wasn’t done but with the alternate project could we separate those or just perhaps approve the alternate project but not find that the environmental assessment is complete or adequate at this point? Ms. Furth: Under the state law you are required to consider the draft environmental document before you for your.recommendations to City Council. You are not technically required to approve it. If you feel you don’t have sufficient information to make an informed recommendation then you should delay your recommendation. Chair Bialson: Okay. Go ahead. Commissioner Packer: Mine is sort of a follow up question. Do we have an alternate option? The way I understood the alternate project is we don’t really have a project, but we have a set of zoning recommendations that would allow a project of almost 74,000 square feet but there is no project in front of us that is designed out, sketched out,_whatever of that size. So all we are doing as a project that is proposing to change the zoning on the restaurant site and allowing the merger. Ms. Furth: Correct. That is a project under CEQA. Commissioner Packer: In that sense there’s a project, but there is not physical proposal. Ms. Grote: That’s correct. Should the applicant wish to pursue it, if that’s your recommendation and the Council upholds that, then they would need to redesign their physical project in order to comply with thoSe recommendations. Commissioner Packer: So my question is, as our other option is to say well, we think that might be a good idea but let’s wait until we see a proposal for a pr0j ect that meets the zoning :as if the restaurant site were rezoned and decide about rezoning that site at that time. In other words, to rezone a site now without a project may be premature. I don’t know. I mean, do we have that as an additional... Ms. Furth: Do you have an application in front of you, a request for a zone change, and a request for a Comprehensive Plan Change? So you have to make a recommendation to City Council on those requests, yes or no. You don’t have to make any recommendation on any alternative. Staff has said that they believe the Comprehensive Plan change and a different zone change would be a good idea from a planning perspective but you can reject both. Chair Bialson: Michael. Commissioner Griffin: Joe, I am wondering if you could talk about that intersection that has such an impact on this project. It has been characterized by some as being perhaps the worst City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 intersection in the entire City. I would be interested in your coinrnents about that and whether or not you agree and what are the possibilities, for being able to improve on that corner. Mr. Kott: Well we have reviewed the traffic impact analysis prepared for this project and we accept the findings as being done with due care and best analytic practices. So we accept the traffic impact analysis. The intersection operates right now at fairly low quality as documented in the traffic impact analysis. Long term, the City does need to make substantial investments to improve that intersection’s operation. It does not appear that the addition to this project will make a significant difference in the operation of that intersection. I think you will find that in the traffic impact analysis. Chair Bialson: As a follow on to that, is there any concern that Caltrans would have any difficulty with the early morning commute and the evening commute in that area? It seems to back up off of 101 and back onto the 101. Mr. Kott: The main impact of this project would be at San Antonio Road and 101 and will increase delay there at the off-ramp. There is a substantial delay now. That location will have to be signalized,, it seems to me. That is more of a concern than Embarcadero and East B ayshore. Caltrans is concerned about that intersection right now. Chair Bialson: The intersection of San Antonio? Mr. Kott: The intersection of San Antonio and 101 is of greater ~oncern to Caltrans because of it’s poor operation is a greater concern of ours, too. Conlmissioner Griffin: I will ask another one then. You say that the revised traffic study has been sent to the County Congestion Management Agency for review and comment. I take it we have got nothing back from them at this time. Mr. Kott: Not to my knowledge, Commissioner Griffin. Commissioner Griffin: Do we know when that is expected? Mr. Kott: They are generally responsive. I would expect soon but I don’t know when. Commissioner Griffin: Clearly we are not going to have the advantage of their comments for tonight’s decision. Mr. Kott: No. Chair Bialson: Commissioners, any other questions before hearing from the public? I don’t have any cards but I have a feeling there may be some out there. The first speaker is Joy Ogawa. Oh, sorry, I forgot the applicant. The applicant has 15 minutes. When you are ready let us know. City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 .5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Richard Peer’g, Applicant: I’m Richard Peery, my children actually own this in a trust. My partner and myself have had this site for 10 years and we are long time residents of Palo Alto. I have lived here almost all my life. Our reputation for building these type of projects - I don’t get the giant multistory projects. This project sounds like a big giant project, it’s 100,000 feet, it’s 5.6 acres of land. It is combining property. It is taking some property that if we.had been approached by the City to buy these properties and combine them and build something not too big, it would be begging for us to do it if we would build a quality project. This project is a well-conceived project for the long run. I’m not here to build it and get out of town. The market’s a little slower right now. I have taken quite a bit of time into planning this - I didn’t come here and just rush it through. I took a lot of time. When I heard about the traffic situation, I had traffic studies made. I started to notice myself, we happen to be in a dead quadrant of that intersection it all goes toward East Palo Alto. It means on the other side you can go - 5:30 or 6:00 and go in when you come out the traffic’s really good on this particular side. It works very easy because of this particular quadrant where we are there. We took time to study that. I’ve done it three times right now all together now just to get this to make sure we-had this addressed because I knew that would be a concern. The design of a building like that, we’ve laid it out two or three times just to be sure it was a good design that : people thought would be good. We ran it through the whole Architectural Review Board to get their ideas. They had some different ones and we re-laid it out again just to make sure that we had a quality project that people felt good about for a long time. I have where that Regis McKenna was and Dean and Embarcadero that was our project. You see the quality that is. It has lasted. It hasn’t been outdated. It doesn’t look junky. We built the stuff on Rengstorff down by 101 over there where Sun started, all those initial projects with all that landscaping that is all our stuff. So we have taken a lot of time to build this. Our coverage on this project is only .23. It is not 200% or the actual footprint is .23. The size of it is 46, it is two story. It has cost a lot more money to get a little bit less footage to park and get more parldng. There is lots of landscaping when you see the plan here. It is such a quality once in a lifetime type of project. So it has taken a lot of time in the planning it hasn’t been a rush. Both Mr. Arrillaga and myself have personally taken a lot of time to take every alternative we could think possible to lay this site out and run it-through different City people. The question is what is the benefit? Well we try to have restaurants out there. Two of them have gone broke. Scott’s suffered. We worked with them so they could get into Town & Country so they could make a transfer where business is better. It has been a tough location for housing in the middle of a quadrangle to the freeway isn’t really a good place. There are no schools and supporting things. You wonder about mitigation well they have raised the fees from a couple, two or three hundred thousand to $950,000 for the housing mitigation for that part. $950,000 can do a lot of good. In this part we have LM-30 has been the zoning, it’s been here forever. When a guy wanted to build a restaurant, he just came and that one piece of paper and said I want to build a restaurant, they gave him the PC for the restaurant and it was changed. If it went back to this LM-30 that they are talking about it would be reverting back to the zoning that was there many years ago, City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 This, because we are combining the properties and because we are doing such a quality thing, I 2 think it very much warrants this type of density. I think you have seen a lot of stuff before so 3 you have seen high density projects like this. If you look at the drawings like this, I would like 4 you to reconsider what we’ve done, what we have tried to attempt do and taking our time to make 5 this a quality project for the City. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 It has our signature on it and the quality and we are committed to doing the job the right way. We are not in here for the quick move or something like that. We would like you to consider that, we feel in no way whatsoever is that an unreasonable density or we’re just coming down here like downtown and got right up to the curb and going up three or four stories. You see the drawings and you see the relationship to the property. I think this will make a really big improvement. Now if they made it a PC zoning then we can do a few more things with the traffic and some things that relate to the Bay Area and some signage and some things that would be all right, but the project without that, you could zone this LM-4/5 just like they do everywhere else because it’s combined and you wouldn’t have to do any PC anything. It could be just as easy as going .30. You just have to look at it yourself. You have seen a lot of projects. A lot of people come here with pretty giant projects. If you to0k at the other side, with some0fthese things, with Carrasco and Associates, it is 200% coverage. We aren’t trying anything like that. We have taken a lot of time and would appreciate any consideration you would give us and I hope you can appreciate what we have tried to do over time. We have tried to prepare ourselves before coming here so you could see the alternatives and things that we have done. Thank you very much for your time. Chair Bialson: Do you have anyone else on your team to speak? Mr. Cliff Chang~ 156 Chapin Lane, Burlingame: Cliff Chang with Cooper and Associates. I have been involved with this project for quite some time. I think it was mentioned there is a long history. I would just like to review briefly all of the schemes and all of the basic submittals that we have made and how we incorporated a lot of the good ideas that have come out of meetings with the City. Initially the building was an L-shape and it stayed that all throughout. The big concept was that we wanted to instead of building a big monolithic rectangle we wanted to break the building down into two basic parts around an. entry element. So we came up with an L- shaped configuration that actually created a space down Watson Court and actually had some identity from the freeway off ramp. We have a circular parking area and entries down to the underground garage and as mentioned we have a significant amount of parking underneath. We always had that and our finn proposal still has that which will allows much more than adequate landscaping around the building. After this we tried another configuration, which actually had a longer L-piece back here instead of up here to lessen the impact off of East Bayshore Road. I think after some discussion there was some bias toward that plan. When we met with the ARB they had a lot of comments. Some of the basic comments were that the building doesn’t really make a dynamic gesture toward the freeway on this. side. There wasn’t enough material composition because we had a lot ofprecast and it looked very heavy, all the openings were very regular. It just looked very harsh to the committee. Also there wasn’t enough pronounced entry statement. Another large item was they CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 wanted us to improve the solar orientation to the building. There was too much sun coming from this way and into some of the wings of the building. So talcing those comments into account we devised another site plan which actually took the dynamics of this off-ramp and actually curved this entire face of the building so we have a really smooth transition as people come off the ramp. We kept the central entry element. Here are two accesses down to the garage, we screened those well. We still have a recreation lawn area. We completed the parking circuit around the building so there is a very positive drop-off right in the front. I’ll show you some of the views so you can see. This is theview coming in from Watson Court where you get a very nice composition ofldnd of rough pre-cast material, larger openings so it is not so repetitive. Then a lot of metal and glass that appears either above or within the precast, there is a lot of interplay there. It is a lot more architectural. This is the view from the intersection, from this area, you can see the precast, it comes curving around and then growing out of that precast we have a the metal system that is almost nautical likein its geometries. It comes to a rounded point and almost seems to kind of hover we have taken all the precast columns here and ldnd of lifted at the whole building up on these round columns. And this Would be the view from the freeway, off-ramp where this rotunda, which was precast before becomes more of an articulated glass high quality metal finish. I think overall we have spent a long time and I think a lot of these changes, all of these changes, have been very positive from our perspective, and I think they have been very positive from the ARB and the City’s perspective. They were very good comments. That kind of tracks the history of the building. So I don’t know if there are any questions now. I will hand it over to Carol. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Mr. Fred Choa: Good evening. I just want to add a couple of things to what Joe mentioned primarily about those two intersections that have been identified. The first one, Embarcadero and East Bayshore, that is correct - primarily in the evening peak hour it does operate at a lower grade level of service but based on the deta]ied .operations analysis we did for existing future scenarios without the proposed project and future conditions with the proposed project it did not trigger a significant impact. We were asked by both the Transportation Division and the project advocates what could be done, although it is not warranted in the mitigation measure, to improve traffic load in that corridor. As part of that we recommended as an improvement to the flow improving the signal coordination along East Bayshore. The second one, in terms of San Antonio Road 101 off ramp that signalized intersection has been warranted for several years now, both morning and night and it’s very hard to make that left turn. Caltrans currently is worldng on a design that will include not only Caltrans monies but Palo Alto and Mountain View monies as a combined project to mitigate a problem that has been there for several years now irregardless of this project or any other project. So with that I just want to add a little bit more information for your use. Thank you. In terms of signal coordination, improving traffic flow, again during the evening peak hours, there are a lot of people malting that left turn either coming off the freeway or going over City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Embarcadero Road or coming off either at the San Antonio off ramp to bypass congestion on University Avenue. So by retiming the signals we get the traffic to flow a little bit better and still most likely won’t improve it to acceptable or very good levels of service. Again, minor improvements, signal coordination which aren’t required in the mitigation measures was offered as part of this project. Ms. Carol Jansen, 575 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto: I have been worldng with Dick and Jason Peery and John Arrillaga and the project team for over a year now to bring forward this project. I would like to hit a couple of planning issues because I think what was before, and I think it was a good Staff Report that laid out all the issues. I would like to narrow it down to just a couple 11 because I think there are. That is, is this type of use is appropriate for this area and from my 12 -perspective it is called the East Bayshore Employment District. Over the last many, many years 13 1978 to 1988 when we did the Citywide land use and transportation study and the most recent 14 Comprehensive Plan update those issues have been looked at throughout the City and there was 15 never any submission for change here.. This is a 7¢ery poor retail environment:~ All of the 16 retailers in this area have had hard times and have over the years wanted in and out. I think there 17 were two failed restaurants on the site before Scott’s Seafood and I think you know they have 18 left the location also. The second thing that what really is before you then is this project, as a 19 Planned Community zone with the public benefit package as proposed, and we really haven’t 20 spoken to that at all and I would like to briefly do that, or a standard site and design type of 21 project which has the option of being LMB-3, LMB-4 or LMB-5 and in fact it is addressed in the 22 Comprehensive Plan that any one of those designations is appropriate for this area. There are 23 buildings of that .3 FAR, .4 FAR and .5 FAR in this general area. Since this is one of the largest 24 sites I think it is good we - it will probably be the largest combined site in the entire East 25 Bayshore Employlnent District it certainly merits that kind of consideration. What you have 26 before you however is a Planned Community zoning proposal that would provide the public 27 benefit package all of which is multi-modal and transportation oriented. The signalization 28 intersection retiming is a substantial project that involves I believe four different jurisdictions 29 and six different intersection and will help dramatically to move traffic better in that location and 30 address some of the issues that I think you have, Commissioner Griffin. The second thing is that 31 under the gateway feature and the first year funding of the Embarcadero Road shuttle system is 32 in operation, so there are many transit oriented proposals that come with the PC that would not 33 be in a standard project. Thank you. 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Bialson: ThaN< you. Joy Ogawa. Questions by Commissioners? Phyllis and tl~en Bonnie. Commissioner Cassel: I have one question and that is the Planning Commission has frequently asked people to come before them early in the project for these kinds of reviews in case if you’re asking such as this, an increase in the density over what’s allowed, that we don’t turn it down later after two years of works. Why didn’t you come to us earlier for a review? Why did you go to the ARB instead of us? Ms. Jansen: Actually it was the ARB proposal was to get a design that we felt comfortable with. And to be candid with you, it wasn’t until after we ran into - after many, many months of discussion with Staff that the issue of the Comprehensive Plan was raised. So it is before you in CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 a different pack. If we were to start from scratch, it would be very very lengthy and expensive. I do agree with that. It is unfortunate. Chair Bialson: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: My question is whether you began sketching out a design that would fit in ~¢ith the existing zoning assuming the restaurant parcel would be LM-3? There is 74,0~)0 square feet that would fit with the office area, which would fit with the .3 FAR. Could that work? Ms. Jansen: Physically, there is no question that if you make it smaller it works very well as it is in its current proposal so anything smaller is going to work. The difference would be no public benefits and possibly the underground parking is at risk because the density drives the undergroun~t parldng. It is only a 23% coverage of this building or a .46 FAR which is extraordinary low coverage for that area. It is low by research park standards Chair Bialson: Any other questions? Kathy. Commissioner Schmidt: The Staff Report made some suggestions of other combinations of things, for example, the housing or the childcare center something like that with 74,000 square feet of office and some other use that would still allow more coverage but a different use. Did you consider any of.those other options? Mr. Peery: We didn’t really didn’t on the tiousing mix in that we didn’t think it was appropriate for this particular site. Downtown, ifI had an area for office and housing, it might be a great place and close to schools and facilities everything else. I’m really isolated, I’m at the fre, eway, I can insulate the building inside, the roof, and down to cover those concerns. In this particular location I even designed the building so all. sides, from the freeway on down, all the front doors are on the back, it is beautiful on all sides. We looked at that thing and we tried to look at it every which way and we didn’t get a real warm reception to it being in this particular location. This makes sense to.put this kind of office out in this area and I think.increase more dovcntown area those services that migl~t be neighborhood. Thard~ you. Chair Bialson: Michael, do you have a question? Commissioner Griffin: Yes. Mr. Peery, you made mention of the project being in a dead quadrant vis a vis traffic circulation. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? Mr. Peery: When I say it is dead it is not like there is no traffic. If you drove in from let’s say the East Palo Alto side and everybody went to IKEA and everybody else tried to turn right and go to this property you could turn and go right around that comer and end up in the project. If you left this project going toward the intersection and people coming from San Antonio taking the shortcut from these other projects coming into this project. So if you want to come out and come on there are two left hand turn lanes, one or two, one to go left and one to go straight, and you would be the first one to go. So on this particular Side has nothing except has nothing except the dog kennels Palo Alto and four or five little buildings on that side for a block. There is not a City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 whole city on that side or anything else. The major traffic on this intersection I believe comes probably toward East Palo Alto, that’s the main entrance on that side, people turning and making left hand turns once they leave Bayshore or cutting through. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you. I have had some experience in the Watson Court area trying to get out of there at evening rush hour for example and I encountered that traffic coming north on the frontage road up from the corporate yard for example and from the other properties further south and found it extremely difficult because the back up northbotmd on that frontage road I could not, for a long period of time, get out and get into that flow of traffic. That is my anecdotal experience. Mr. Peery: One of the things we are changing is the intersection timing and so on and so for was to help with that possible problem. In ours, it’s not like a movie, we get out and everybody goes home at the same time. They ldnd of filter out over time and so even where we are now, we’ve had pretty good traffic out of the restaurant and other uses. But if you take all drivers, compared to that intersection, it would be probably the least amount of traffic, even though it could be a slight problem you weren’t waiting an extraordinary amount to get out there, were you? Commissioner Griffin: Yes. Chair Bialson: Appreciate it. Any other Commissioners? The first speaker is Joy Ogawa. You have five minutes. Ms. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto: Policy L-46 of the Comp Plan says. ’maintaining 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." So I’d like to place emphasis on diverse small businesses and support services. It seems to me that a service commercial zoning doesn’t allow for these types of businesses and support services, that’s what’s on that 1.84 acres. Therefore, re-zoning from CF2 to L(D)(3), I don’t think is in accord with the comp plan. Just because Scott Seafood felt it was no economically feasible for them, I don’t think necessarily_means that location’s unsuited to any restaurant use. Unless you have another Chinese restaurant, you’re not going to see any direct competition with it, I don’t think and there are other uses that are permitted in service commercial zones. On page L11, the following are included: quote, "Typical uses include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumber yards, appliance stores and restaurants, including fast service types." The Comp Plan goes on to say, "In some locations, residential and mixed use projects may be appropriate in this land use category." So I don’t see how you can justify making a finding which Staff included their st.affreport, making a finding that the 1.8 acre parcel is no longer economically viable, if Scott Seafood doesn’t want to be in that spot, there are other uses permitted in the commercial zone that are economically viable. Furthermore the Comp Plan is supposed to protect this location from an office use. The ground floor retail ordinance says that office is not permitted to go into a space that was occupied by a restaurant on March 19, 2001 in a service commercial district, exactly what we have here. So therefore, something that was there until March of this year and therefore that space is currently City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 protected under the ground floor retail ordinance, so it seems that attempt is being made here to 2 force .a ground floor retail ordinance by rezoning from service commercial to LM. I think it’s 3 outrageous to try and circumvent a ground floor retail ordinance by rezoning from a commercial 4 district to a manufacturing district just so that a large office building can be built. And under LM 5 zoning, a restaurant would no longer be a permitted use. Basically~, the only redeeming feature 6 of a staff recommended alternate project over the proposal is that it is not as large as the 7 originally proposed office building. It seems to be it’s a here we go again theme where the 8 applicant asks for way more than they’re allowed under current zoning and we’re supposed to be 9 grateful that they’ve scaled back by 70%. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 This seems to happen all the time and here we’re being asked to amend the comp plan and re- zone a parcel in order to allow for a large office building and I’m totally opposed to that. The job here I think is woefully inadequate, staff is even incomplete and the 26% housing impact fee, the housing I feel only covers 26% of the actual cost. It doesn’t maize any sense to me to say there’s no traffic of significant impact at East Bayshore and Embarcadero and that intersection, because it’s a re-zone, and an amendment to the comp plan, that intersection’s not protected by the current comp plan EIR. Consider Laurel Lane and International School, the traffic there’s so bad that.. ~. you have to provide a path through the bay lands and w_hat’s the analysis of Laurel Lane, here, it seems obvious that people who want to go to the east bay are going to go along East Bayshore and add to that really congested intersection. I think that none of the applicant’s proposed project serve the public interest. I don’t think there’s good justification to amend the comp plan or to re-zone, and I urge you not only to reject the application for the PC, I urge you to reject the staffs proposal for the comp plan amendment and change. Chair Bialson: Our last speaker is Angelica Volterra. Ms. Angelica Volterra, P.O. Box 1724, Palo Alto: Good evening. My name is Angela Volterra. My comments will address concerns that I have regarding potential significant enviromnental impact on both proposed projects, impacts which are not, in my opinion adequately addressed by neither the environmental checklist or negative declarations of the staff proposal or the draft environmental checklist that the proposed project. First, the 2300 East.Bayshore site is located at an area designated as an AE8 floodzone. According to the City of Palo Alto Web site, this AE8 zone designation describes a large zone, most of which was once tidal marsh and wetlands, but many years, dike salt evaporation ponds were built in what is now the bay lands and these salt pond levies protect much of the zone from high bay tides. However, FEMA does not consider these levies to be adequate protection from the sort of high tide events that have a 100 year probability of occurring and assumes that if the levies fail, the area in the AE8 zone will be flooded by salt water to an elevation of eight feet above sea level. Thus, in my opinion, any development that will result in a change in the footprint of the existing building, which both proposed projects would do, would potentially, "place this in a 100 year flood hazard area. Structures would then flood out. This could potentially have significant impacts on the surround area and region. CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 Secondly, I’m concerned about the jobs/housing imbalance both jobs would contribute. I also do 2 not understand staff conclusion on page 12 of the staff report that the alternate projects increase a 3 320 office jobs with a net office area "as potentially 520 less office jobs than the office project." 4 Thirdly, and very importantly, with respect to traffic and transportation, I am very concerned 5 about the impacts of the addition of large amounts of traffic which both proposals would in effect cause in the area and specifically the intersection, the Embarcadero/East Bayshore intersection which is already a problematic intersection. I’ve only had the opportunity this afternoon, along with the planning department, to briefly review the traffic impact analysis for this project, that has been prepared by Peers Associates. Iaa the short time I had to review this lengthy document, I found a number of issues that concern me about the analysis. I believe that the methodology that is used to use the trip generation statistic~s and to arrive at the conclusion that this project will only generate a total of 16 net new trips is flawed. I question the inclusion of the theoretical project trip generation figures of the "existing office buildings" in the baseline figures. It is my understanding from speaking with a representative of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation that the Palo Alto Foundation vacated these buildings in September of 2000; therefore, I think it would it be more accurate to eliminate the 384 project trip estimate figure from the baseline. Also, the peak hour Embarcadero/East Bayshore traffic counts used in this analysis were performed by the City of Palo Alto in October of 2001, and was presumably therefore not have included any affects from the existing office buildings. It would therefore not be accurate to include the existing office building figure in the net calculation. Also, while Carol’s memo of August 1, 2002 states that, "a change from service commercial retail on the former Scott Seafood Restaurant parcel is appropriate given the lack of retail viability in that area," the traffic impact analysis includes theoretic three trip generation statistics for presumably viable restaurant, a figure of 756 daily trips, a fact which would seem to contradict Ms Jensen’s assertion that the lack of retail viability for this site. Also, I’ve had the opportunity to review the traffic impact analysis included in the draft supplemental environmental impact report for the university palms project in East Palo Also. This draft SEIR, dated January 2002, studies the proposed 182,000 retail and office development to be located north of Donahoe street between University Avenue and Cooley Avenue in East Palo Alto. This traffic analysis was also prepared by [___] and Associates. In this analysis, the East Bayshore Embarcadero Road intersection as reported as operating at unacceptable or F levels of service during the PM peak hour under existing conditions based on observations of high traffic volumes. This intersection is also projected to operate at an unacceptable or F level during the PM peak hour under background conditions based on observatioaas. This intersection as projected to operate at unacceptable or F levels of service under cumulative conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours; however in the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project, the same intersection level of service under existing conditions for the PM peak hours listed at an LOS of E forbackground conditions with IKEA, also at a LOS or E and for background for IKEA plus the proposed project also at a LOS of E. City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 I was at the Embarcadero/East Bayshore intersection at 1PM this afternoon watching cars 2 traverse this area. It is a dangerous intersection. You watch cars coming off the frontage road 3 ¯ traveling north and having to cross level lanes of traffic in order to take a left turn into East 4 Bayshore. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 i6 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 I believe it would be very important for there to be a careful and accurate traffic impact analysis prepared for whatever project is contemplated for this location, given potential significance of the addition of large volumes of traffic to this very sensitive area. And finally, with respect to air quality issues, neither of these environmental findings is significant relative to air quality criteria for the proposed project. However, once again, the draft supplemental impact report for the University Palms project in East Palo Also states that this University Palms project is "in an area undergoing rapid redevelopment." The combined emissions of the project and past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would greatly exceed the BAA QMD significance threshold for regional air pollutants, even though new emissions associated with the project do not thought through. Chair Bialson: I was hoping that was your last page. Ms. Volterra: ...would have a significant, cumulative impact on effects on regional air quality. I believe it would be very important to study the effects of this project cumulatively with other proposed and existing projects in the area to ensure that the cumulative effects of the proposed project do not result in significant air quality impact. Thank you. Chair Bialson: I have one more card for Emily Renzel. Ms. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto: I just squeaked under the wire here and I did email your comments, but I would love to get them into the record. I would urge you to deny the PC application for 105,000 square feet of office building of approximately 70,000 square feet would otherwise be allowed under LM(D)(3). I understand that perhaps because there was a restaurant PC that there was some thought of changing the whole area to PC but I was on the council commission at the time that restaurant was approved and also meetings on the - there were two considerations at the time. One was that they would be low peak hour trips and that they were also very carefully designed to integrate into the gateway to the bay lands because they were low key means that you may recall was very rustic at that time. It has since gotten the title of hues of a brighter colors and that it was very rustic when it was first there under a compatible with an entry to the bay lands. I agree completely with the staff finding that the PC is not compatible with the comprehensive plan, and that the onsite benefits do not warrant the PC. I would also urge you to evaluate whether the traffic conditions that you’ve just heard about at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Frontage Road might warrant consider even the more restrictive zoning of LM(D)(5). That intersection, besides having a very bad level of service, which just means that you might have to wait a couple of turns of the signal, there is tremendous amount of merging from the City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 northbound 101 over to the left turn lane to the Frontage Road in East Palo and likewise people coming from the left turn lanes of Embarcadero wanting to turn right on East Bayshore Frontage and it’s a very dangerous situation that occurs there right now. There’s no real easy way to mitigate that. I would say anything that reduce potential impacts there is worthwhile. Over the years under design review, there’s been a lot of care taken to keep development low key and compatible with the park and open space experience that is just a little further along the road, both on East Bayshore Frontage as well as on Embarcadero with the park and open space uses there. Also, Embarcadero Road is designated a scenic route in that area, I hope you’ll take those factors into consideration. I’ve already talked about the problems - there is the new IKEA project coming in and also the international school drop o-ff at Geng Road. There’s only room for three cars to stack in the left turn lane at Gang Road. I think you’re going to see a lot of weird stuff happening there as well and maybe northbound people on East Bayshore frontage road to make a right turn rather than a left turn off of Embarca~lero, so I think it’s going to be a very messy situation, whatever happens. I concur with the staff reconm~endation to get the bike lane from 101 overpass to Watson Court, The comprehensive plan says maintain the scale and character of the city and avoid lane use which are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their scale and size and I think that this proposed PC project is precisely that kind of mammoth project that we hoping to avoid by this kind of policy. A very significant issue, it seems to me, is the proposal for underground parldng because of the ground water issues in that are and I don’t lcnow for a fact that there’s groundwater there, but the conference of plan shows this site as an area subject to high risk of liquefaction and liquefaction is when you have sand and water together and they’re shaking and I saw in Vicksburg at the USGS a sample of this and when that thing shakes, this whole building that’s sitting on it just goes down. And there are ways you can deal with that as far as the building is concerned by driving pilings to bedrock and that sort of thing, but as far as underground parldng, if there is, in fact, groundwater, they will have to pump it out and there may be impacts associated with that in terms of the reduction of flow in the aquifer downgrade of that toward the bay and that could impact settling of the properties that are further toward the bay and be a problem there. I did draw in my letter there may be some improper conclusions in the negative declaration with respect to those issues. Obviously, housing continues to be an issue. Increasing office space seems to be a very - it’s counterintuitive to increased office space because you get more money for housing, but you create way more demand for housing than you’ll get housing. And finally, I do support the staff recommendation for the LM(3)(D) designation, but I would prefer to see the LM(D)(5) which is even less dense. Thank you for your time, and I’m glad I made it in time to talk to you. Chair Bialson: Ifwehave no further cards I will close the public hearing and move back to the Commissioners. May I suggest that if we have any traffic issues that we address them to Joe early on in the meeting so he can start his presentation. City of Palo Alto Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 .38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burr: This is a transportation related issue and first I guess I need to ask Wyrme for her interpretation of Policy L-46 in the Comp Plan cited on page nine of the Staff Report. When it talks about the design of new or redeveloped buildings in the second sentence there, and then in the third sentence it says connection to the nearby bay land should be strengthened by talcing advantage of views and improving bicycle and pedestrian connections to the open space area. Is that third sentence, to your understanding, referencing when new or redeveloped buildings occur? Page nine of the Staff Report and it is italicized, so my question is does sentence 3 apply to when we redevelop or build new buildings, then these connections should be strengthened, or is that a separate statement that just in general within this district we should be strengthening thosepedestrian and view connections? Ms. Furth: I think the answer is both. That this is a goal that’s been set by the Comprehensive Plan and so whenever the City has an opportunity to advance that goal it should, whether it’s by ¯ getting grants to improved facilities or by new design. So. if a new proj ecthasbeen generating heavy traffic was quite limited in time for dedications, the actual transfer of lands for public purposes. So that is something to keep in mind that it means that we should try and do that under all circumstances. Depending on a certain extent on the cooperation of property owners. Commissioner Burr: My follow up question would be for both you and Joe. To the extent that we have the nexus here what are your thoughts on how this project has incorporated those objectives of improving bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space? Mr. Kott: We’ve suggested that connections be made to the bike path near the property, connecting it to Watson Court. That would be very desirable. Commissioner Burt: Have the developers of the project given a response to their receptivity to that? Mr. Kott: I don’t see it in the project as proposed. We are hopeful that it can be worked out. Mr. Peery: We will look-into that first. If you go down the ramp it comes kind of on an angle, you come down to where it joins the end of our property, you’ll be talcing a jacldcnife turn, it goes right down, right out to the Frontage Road, there’s a block, so we just can’t go into the traffic, it’s a straight show, there’s not a turn, you come off down the ramp quick. I don’t want all the liability, I can just see what’s going to happen with that kind ef a tuna with people coming down there on our property. If you ever wanted to secure that parking lot with all the stuff that’s going on right now, some way - you’d never be able to do that with an easement going there on top of it. So it’s a concern to us to be doing that. If you had no way to get through it, a really pronounced path, if you go out there and look at the path, it’s a nice, good clean one, wide, well landscaped on both sides, it’s pretty clean all the way through. And people come out there, they don’t come to watch the traffic at that intersection, they usually go from there across into the bay lands. I don’t think it’s any big deal. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Any other questions for Joe? Yes, Michael? City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ~9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Griffin: No, I’m fine. I made my point. Chair Bialson: You made your point. Okay, Pat. Commissioner Burt: Other Commissioners? Karen? Okay. We heard statements from a members of the public about two different levels of congestion at that intersection from two different traffic analyses by the same company. Does Staff have any comments on whether this ’ is an E or an F level currently and whether it would stay at - what it would stay at, not only with this project but with University Palms and other proposed projects in the area? Mr. Kott: We’re not pleased with the intersection if it is. If you accept the assumption that you can exempt some uses which has been discussed, the action which results does not significantly impact the operation of the very poorly designed traffic flow. Chair Bialson: No other questions? Again, this is transportation/traffic. Commissioner Holman: Yes, Joe, I’ve been baffled when I was reading this. I have really not been able to translate the number of jobs that are projected at this site either on - with the PC overseer, alternate project that Staff has proposed, to the number of net trips that the Staff Reports suggests and as you said agrees with, but 1.6 net new daily trips and then 98 total AM peak trips and 37 PM peak trips, when you look at the number of employees, it doesn’t translate for me. Can you explain how it translates for you so you can educate the rest of us? Mr. Kott: I’m looking at Table 8 in the traffic impact analysis that Sam Pierce - forgive me, I thought you had this. They are projecting peak hour and peak hour trips from Watson Court at 164. I’m sorry, to Watson Court from Watson Court, that’s project generated. But when you work out the - there are some exemptions because of the existing uses. The net new trips, based on the traffic analysis, the net new trips PMP is 37 out of Watson Court instead of the 157 and 98 in instead of tl~e 164. Ms. Grote: I think part of that also is a land use question and how many employees are generated by a certain amount of square footage. We had tried to estimate that not using ITE because ITE doesn’t typically talk about number of employees. SO what we used was San Diego Manual 4 and why we used is because they actually have 110,000 square foot building as an example and used a certain number of employees in that size buil .ding. So we.extrapolated from that and included that in the report as kind of an estimate how many employees might be in a building of similar size, a general size. In reviewing that, we found that it probably is a high estimate. It is probably is too high of an estimate, so we really would not expect 810 or 830 employees in a building. If there happen to be that many employees in this building in San Diego, but it’s not necessarily applicable for every building that size. So that may count, in fact, I think it does count for a lot of the discrepancies between the number of employees that might be generated and the number of trips that might be generated. It probably is something more along the lines of four employees per 1,000 square feet of square footage in the building rather than this 10 to 12 employees per 1.000 square feet. So it is a high estimate in the report. Chair Bialson: Wym~e. CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Furth: You may recall in the issue of how do you deal with - how do establish a baseline where you have a lot of existing buildings, some of which are empty, and this was an issue at the Hanover site as well. The City has a certain amount of latitude in deciding what approach to ¯ take, but generally the CEQA guidelines and case law assumed that buildings, which are not derelict but are in good shape are going to be occupied most of the time. If you compare an existing built site that has restaurants that could operate, you can assume that it is going to be occupied, you don’t assume it’s perpetually vacant, you assume it’s going to hit a level where it will be occupied. So, we’ve seen dramatic examples in the City of how traffic flows vary from buildings depending on if they have tenants. But for CEQA purposes, this would even out the economic cycle, that generally speaking, buildings will be occupied. You wouldn’t do that if they were derelict or if they were no longer lawfully occupied, but for CEQA purposes, you assume the restaurant will run, that the office building would be occupied, and so that provides you with a lot of trips in that analogy. Chair Bialson: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I was wondering if we don’t - if we had a building that was on the combined site nnder an .LM(D)(3), of 74,000.square feet did anybody do a trip generation and impact on the intersection for that scenario? But it would be more than the 332,000 square feet that was there when the medical foundation was built. So what I am saying is that in any event there is going to be more employees with similar trips generated that would impact that intersection. When an applicant came in with a new building that’s going to impact that intersection, there would be very little we could do about it because that’s the way the new building is. As we talk about it, I think we l~ave to keep that in mind, that up to a certain point, the impact on that intersection is going to be there. Ms. Furth: Another thing also to keep in mind is that this is LM(D) and that makes it a discretionary review. So you’re always going to be doing a CEQA analysis on these projects. Mr. Steve Emslie, Director: Even if it’s an entitled project, it’s still required to be reviewed environmentally - any impacts are required to mitigated at a significant level, regardless if it is entitled or not. So if there is a traffic impact that would accrue to a project, and the zoning, you still would have to mitigate any potential impact~, oy.ovdrride.them through a statement of overriding consideration through the preparation of an enviromnental impact report. Chair Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Burr: On page eight of the Staff Report goal L-5 of the Comp Plan is restated and the second sentence begins, "As redevelopment occurs design changes should shift from these areas away from complete reliance on automobiles and promote pedestrian and bicycle connections to the rest of the City and these changes should provide a more diverse mix of services and activities." We presume the accuracy of the Staff Report that really says this is not a very viable location for most restaurant uses and then we are left with the question of how do we achieve or further this goal. We also are seeing the Edgewood Plaza redevelopment plan move forward which presumably would make it into a plaza of a more vialole and desirable .location for providing some of these services that are nearly adjacent to this area with the City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 problem of the separation of 101 and the overpass there. So my question is, has Staff looked at how pedestrian friendly or unfriendly that overpass is and how that relates to this project or the Edgewood redevelopment? Is there some furtherance of this goal that is being considered in this overall plan area? Chair Bialson: I’m tempted to expand the south of the Edgewood area as well but if you could focus on this I would appreciate it. Mr. Kott: Well the area of driftwood is unfriendly to pedestrians, that’s pretty clear. It’s not very good and Palo Alto wants to do things much better, and certainly do have to approve that location as accessible for bicycle and pedestrians, we’d like very much one day to provide an overcross for bicycles and pedestrians that’s safe and segregated for vehicles. I must say it’s very good to have connections to a bicycle network for development and redevelopment, that’s our view. It’s a small contribution to traffic calming in the area. Chair Bialson: Are we going to let Joe go after this? Commissioner Holman: It maybe up to him, I don’t know. We just don’t want to send him running out screaming. Yes, I had posed the question earlier about the confusion at least to me, between the number of jobs and the number of trips and I think the city does use three to four jobs per 1.000 square feet and I have, for a couple of years at least, taken issue with that number. To my experience, it’s not city-wide, but my experience in and doing some random sampling of other jobs and buildings that I have worked in or had relations with it seems to me like six per 1,000 certainly in the higher economic times that we had until recently, and so if you take even alternate project at 74,000 square feet and multiply that times six, you get 444jobs or times four you get 296 jobs. So someone who is faster at math than I can you tell me what that would relate to in terms of trip generation? I’m putting you on the spot here, Joe, I apologize. Mr. Kott: Not everyone operates in the peak hours, but it’s going to be pretty close to 1.0 trip per employee. We do accept it here as trip generation rates, there’s a lot of faith in that. There’s no latitude in their arrangements, and they’re based on case studies all over the country. But we think they’re safe and conservative. The San Diego rates are fine, we think acceptable based on the ITE - trip generation rates. Chair Bialson: Mr. Jason Peery: Four per 1,000, you have to see four per 1,000. Chair Bialson: Thank you. I think we w0uld like to expand the discussion now and maybe Joe, take you off the hot seat. I know you didn’t plan on being here. It was something that we requested at the last minute. Appreciate your coming down. Other questions or comments of the commissioners. Do you have questions? Commissioner Cassel: I have a question. This building is proposed to be 46 feet high with protecting roof equipment. How much of the building is roof equipment? City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Chang: The primary roof equipment, as anticipated to be located right here. And that’s basically 2-3 rooftop units, but there will be other roof equipment that needs to be located, ductwork, things like that throughout the building so that’s why we have a screen over the entire building. Commissioner Cassel: So the building will essentially be 46 feet tall, it’s just that it’s going to be set back? Mr. Chang: Yeah, it steps back. It’s not just one shear, it comes up to this height, and it steps back about ten feet. Actually this is the highest point, this is the point that it’s 46 and this is about six feet lower, so it steps, so this is the highest point Chair Bialson: Michael. MOTION Commissioner Griffin: I will make a motion ifI may. I’d like to move that we deny the proposed PC development into based on the findings for denial that are in the staff report in Attachment E and that the Planning and Transportation Commission approve staff alternative project comprised of firstly a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a research and office park land use, secondly a rezoning of the 1.84 acre parcel to LM(D)(3) based on the findings of the resolution in Attachment D of the Staff report, thirdly merge the two parcels to create a single 5.66 acre parcel, and fourthly adoption of a negative declaration SECOND Commissioner Cassel: rll second. Chair Bialson: We have a motion made by Michael, seconded by Phyllis. Would you care to speak to that motion, Michael? Conlmissioner Griffin: Just briefly I think the commentary in the Staff Report basically expresses my concern. In addition to that I also have questions in my own mind based on anecdotal evidence and an understatement of the transportation and traffic impacts. I’m reading this report and I lcnow that Joe has confidence in the study. I guess I don’t have the technical wherewithal to contest that engineering evidence but experientially it does not work for me. Chair Bialson: Would the seconder like to speak? Commissioner Cassel: Yes I have a couple of other points. I won’t read all of them. My basic issue is that we are under a great deal of pressure in the City of Palo Alto to increase our housing imbalance. I know that we have rights to own property, to develop that property or are we going to take this whole piece property and buy it and move it in the bay lands, and I don’t have that money right now. So owner has rights but we don’t have to increase that zoning and that is the for this area. We have been talking about this .in general as we were reviewing the Zoning Ordinance recently and we have talked about/continuing to have an LM(D)(3) zone out.there and City of PaIo Alto Page 20 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 the importance of not having the zone any heavier than that. There’s been some discussion 2 tonight implying perhaps we might put a LM(D)(5) out there, but we did not talk about that in 3 any of our general discussions, None of the area is zoned that way at this time. I love.housing, I 4 think this is not a good site for housing. I looked up the traffic LDM numbers and this is as 5 intense in noise that’s along in this area it’s continuous. This is not a good zone for that. So I would like to see the LM(D)(3) there. I can’t see us putting it at a lower level but I certainly would not like to see us increase the density at this time at that site. Chair Bialson: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I agree with what’s been said, but I would go further. I would, I don’t know how to do this, but say what I think. I agree that it should deny the PC request, but I would go with this further and say I don’t want to change the comprehensive plan, or change the zoning on the 1.84 parcel or approve the merging of the two parcels until we see another version of the public plan for this area and then we can talk about it more intelligently because it. may be that that might want to keep as service commercial ~or some reason. I think its premature, so I wonder if the maker of the motion would want to address the four aspects so we could talk about whether or not we want to deny the motion, deny the PC application, and then talk about the merging of the parcel and the rezoning of the smaller parcel. Chair Bialson: So you are asking that the motion be separated out into three components? Commissioner Packer: Yes so we can talk about that so if there’s something to agree upon. Ms. Furth: It would be helpful for us to - the request before you is - there’s two requests for you to make a recommendation on, one is should there be a comprehensive plan change from the service commercial to office research. Secondly, if and only if you recommend the change to service commercial in the Comprehensive Plan what zone change should there be? We need to have some zone change and would it be the request of PC or would it be LM(D)(3) or would it be something else? And then thirdly you have the merger but the merger is really something that the applicant decides whether or not they want to proceed with. That’s something that we would do. Ms. Grote: I just want to add that because we are recommending LM(D)(3) that (D) means site and design, it means any project as redesigned would come back through the commission for your review. So it isn’t as if you wouldn’t see a redesigned project. Chair Bialson: I understand but what Wyrme is saying is that Staff would prefer us to have a several stage motion. Is that what you are saying? Ms. Furth: I prefer that you come out with a recommendation that’s consistent when you finish. That the recommendation for zoning matches your recommendations to the Comprehensive Plan. And you can decide that you don’t want to take any action on the Comprehensive Plan change at this time other than to say no to the PC request and Comp Plan change as part of this or you can decide that you do have enough information to recommend a change. One other thing I would say is that whether it came before you with a - the reason you don’t have to act on it now is the CiO~ ofPalo Alto Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 :19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 applicant has requested a change to LM(D)(3) and if they did request a change to LM(D)(3), incidentally, even if they had a specific proposal in front of you, they wouldn’t have to go that proposal. Chair Bialson: What I understand is you’re asking Michael consider amending his motion to first address whether the project before us - I heard you say two different ways, but for the project before us, is to be approved by the Commission? Ms. Furth: Yeah, and Michael’s first recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the PC zone change to the City Council unless you’ve acted on that one, and then once you sort out what you were doing with the plans. Chair Bialson: Does the maker of the motion then, Michael, agree to amend his motion to the more limited matter of the denial of the PC zoning? Commissioner Griffin: I will accept that. Chair Bialson: Does the seconder? .... Commissioner Cassel: Under those circumstances, I will accept. Chair Bialson: Fine. And do.we have any discussion or is the Commission ready to take a vote on that? Yes, Karen. Cormnissioner Holman: Just a comment actually which is I agree with what Commissioner Cassel said earlier and rm not certain that one other Commissioners did as well. I think it is an unfortunate process and I guess I will just leave it at that. It is an unfortunate process and it is really unfortunate that the applicant has gone through this much process to then just get at this stage. I feel badly for them, nonetheless I think it is not a project that we should approve. MOTION PASSED Chair Bialson: Why don’t take a vote then. All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) All those opposed say nay. The motion passes seven to zero, unanimously. On to the next motion which I understand from Wyrme can be one of two matters. Ms. Furth: Right now it is service commercial and that’s the next item and staff recommends that you change it to OR. Ms. Furth: The request is to - one that allows research and that seems to definitely - it’s also the requested by the applicant. Commissioner Griffin: I continue to concur that and will accept the Staff recommendation on that item. In other words it would change. CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Bialson: Okay. So on that point, Bonnie, do you want to re-state your... Commissioner Packer: The reason that I don’t support that change at this time is I would like to see a different proposal. I just want to say, and I didn’t get a chance to say this, I think in a vacuum I think the building looks nice, I like the landscaping although a little too large, and maybe the applicant can come back to us with something that we can review under an LM(D)(3) project for office uses, but also the beautiful landscaping that’s proposed and at that time when we see what’s there, we would have more information and would be ready to allow that. It could be that something will come up that we want to do something with that plot that is more service commercial oriented. That’s why I just - it’s a postponement of the decision is why I recommend it at this time. Chair Bialson: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: The reason I would like to see it changed is I don’t want to see it come back as .4 so as it’s stated, it’s not, and could go in put in service commercial at a .4 level whereas if you make it .3 at this point with the LM(D)(3), and that issue has been resolved, it saves the applicant timeif he wishes to do that and he can still come back in with some retail if you want to do it as a use permit but I don’t think that is going to happen at this site, it is not a good site for that. So I would rather see it downzoned now and the process move on, so that whoever is going to be the applicant on this site has a chance to move forward. Chair Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Burr: Did I understand the City Attorney correctly in that we can’t be conditioning the zoning change upon a specific project design? That issue is already addressed, Bonnie. As much as you may prefer it or the rest of us would prefer to see a specific design that would be the basis for a zoning change, that’s is not proper course of action. Ms. Furth: I think that - of Course these things are always easy to separate in theory than in practice, but one of the things that you said tonight was you regret that so much effort went into design work before fundamental decisions were made about zoning and you’re sort of setting that up again, so in theory you make the zoning decision based upon what you think is an appropriate reason or think an appropriate zone for that site. Chair Bialson: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I do have a question about the CS Zone for Staff, which .is a member of the public brought up the issue about the ground floor protection for CS so how would a zone change affect that or comply or not comply with that ground floor protection? Ms. Grote: If it were to be zoned CS it would be subject to the ground floor ordinance that is ~n place currently. What that states is that a new or remodeled building can be built as long as the area that was in retail use, personal service use or other three uses that are "protected" does not decrease in size. So that if this were a remodeled or a new building 8400 square feet would need to stay in one of those five uses that are protected as of March 19, 2001. So as long as that City of Palo Alto Page 23 1 occurred there still could be a new building on the site and it still could include some of.the uses 2 that are permitted in the CS District as well as the 8400 square foot protected use. 3 4 Ms. Grote: You would have to rezone it. You would have to have a rezone to CS. Currently, it’s 5 PC. 6 7 Commissioner Holman: That is where I was coming from because it is a PC that is in 8 commercial service that is a different application. 9 10 Ms. Grote: A PC is not subject to the ground floor retail. If it were rezoned to CS it would be 11 subject to the ground floor retail regulations. 12 13 Chair Bialson: 14 15 Commissioner Packer: Debate is a wonderful thing. Phy!lis almost convinced me she had some 16 very.good arguments. 17 18 Chair Bialson:- So you will now support the motion? 19 20 Cormnissioner Packer: I will now support the motion. 21 22 Commissioner Griffin: Good for you, Bonnie. 23 24 Commissioner Holman: Should we rather decide that LM(D)(5) would be a more appropriate 25 because of housing concerns, traffic concerns, what would be the impact on total FAR in the ¯ 26 relation to the LM(D)(3)? 27 28 Ms. Grote: The total site coverage is less by about 4,000 square feet if it were to be rezoned to 29 LM(D)(5). The reason Staff is recommending the LM(D)(3) is that is consistent with the 30 surrounding land uses and the surrounding zoning. So we felt that was a more appropriate zone 31 than the LM(D)(5). But that is for you to discuss. 32 33 Chair Bialson: Pat. 34 35 Commissioner Burt: I would just like to comment that as we went through the Zoning Ordinance 36 Update we have looked at all of the LM areas of the City and searched for opportunities to, at the 37 margins, address our jobs/housing imbalance. I was one of the people who asked for this entire 38 area, are there any opportunities that we might have for housing in this area. And we haven’t 39 resolved that issue but certainly this site doesn’t look like a very good candidate for it. Second, 40 that we have, this entire ar~a being LM(D)(3) I think we are obliged to maintain the consistency 4i of this East Embarcadero area for that zone. So I think the proposal that we have before us is the 42 most appropriate one. 43 44 Chair Bialson: I think we can vote at.this unless I have an objection. No objection? 45 All those in favor of Michael’s motion to rezone this parcel LM(D)(3) and do the Comp Plan 46 amendment? City of Palo Alto Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Commissioner Burt: Can you repeat that for the record? Ms. Grote: Research office park. MOTION PASSED Chair Bialson: All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed say nay. That passes unanimously seven to zero. That finishes this Item No. 1, the 2300 East Bayshore Road matter. Thank you very much. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Attachment, F PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Amy French DEPARTMENT: Planning and Senior Planner Community Environment DATE: " SUBJECT: September 4, 2002 2300 East Bayshore Road [02-CPA-01, 02-EIA-03, 02-PC-01]: Request for approval ofa 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 landuse 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 parcel with the 1.84 acre parcel to create a single. 5.66 acre parcel. Applicant: Carol Jansen representing A & P Family Investments. Environmental Assessment: Draft Initial Study indicating the need formitigation of potential impacts. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission): conduct an initial review and recommend denial of the proposed Peery-Arrillaga Office Project (file 02~PC-01), a Planned Community zone change consisting of the proposed development program statement, plan and schedule, and,(.2) recommend approval of an "alternate" project comprised of (a) the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment fora "Researcti/Office Park" land use designation, (b) a rezoning of the 1.84 acre parcel to the LM(D)(3) zone, (c) a merging of the two parcels to create a 5.66 acre parcel, and (d) adoption of a Negative Declaration. If the P lanning and Transportation Commission wishes to recommend approval of the Planned Community zone change,, staff recommends additional time be allocated to City of Palo Alto Page 1 identify mitigation measures to address potential impacts as indicated in the Initial Study for the Planned Community project (02-EIA-03). PROJECT DESCRIPTION site Information The project site is lo’cated on the comer of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road, across from Ming’s Restaurant. The site is bounded by Bayshore Freeway., Watson Court, and by an LM(D)(3) zoned site developed with a two-story office building. CalTrans Right-of-Way, comprised of the Oregon Expressway exit loop and access road to Embarcadero Road, as well as a public bicycle path connecting to East Bayshore Road, borders the southerly edge of the site. In 1974, the City Council approved a parcel map to subdivide a 7.9 acre parcel zoned LMD into three parcels. The.project~siteis .5..66 acres (246,442 square, feet), comprised ofp_arcel 1 (3.82 acres) and parcel 2 (1.84 acres) of that parcel map. There are five existing structure, s with floor area totaling 41,654 square feet on the 5.66 acre site, for an existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0f: 17:1. Existing Restaurant Parcel The 1.84-acre (81,050 sq.ft.) parcel is developed with an 8,400 sq.ft, restaurant.(currently vacant) having an FAR of. 1:1. This parcel was rezoned "Planned Community" (PC. 2785) in t974 toallow Scott’s Seafood restaurant and cocktail lounge. Prior to the adoption of PC 2785, the parcel was zoned L-M-D. The parcel has a land use designation ¯ of"Service Commercial" as shown on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Map. The 1981 Comprehensive Plan map showed this same designation. The service commercial designation allows a non-residential FAR of up to 0.4:1. Existing LMD3 Zoned: Parcel . The 3.82 acre (166,400 sq.ft.) parcel is developed with four office buildings (currently vacant) totaling 33,200 sq.ft. (or an FAR of .2:1). The buildings were last ocgupied by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. This parcel is zoned Limited Industrial with site combining districts (LMD3), which limits the FAR to .3:1 and requires a Site and Design Review process for approval of redevelopment on the parcel. The parcel is designated in the Comprehensiv.e Plan for "Research!Office Park" land use, which allows an FAR ranging between 0.3:1 and 0.5"1. The 1981 Comprehensive Plan map showed this same designation. The site currently has four driveways providing regress and egress (two at East Bayshore Road and two at Watson Court) and there is a 65-foot wide public utilities easement running across the northerly portion of the site. There are 120 mature trees on the site, City of Paio Alto Page 2 including significant Eucalyptus, Casuarina and Pine trees that border the edges of the property. There are no protected trees on the site. Proiect Components The applicant proposes the following project components: Assigning a new land use designation of °°Research/Office Park" to the 1.84 acre restaurant parcel (currently designated "Service Commercial"); Merging the two parcels to create a single 5.66 acre site for redevelopment (requiringa Parcel Map application.). ,Rezoning the combined site to a Planned Community (PC) zone. Constructing a two-story office building comprised of 105,000 square feet of office area and 5,000 square feet of employee amenity area. The requested Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.45:1 includes the employee amenity area (which would be considered "exempt".from FAR calculations for a development under the LMD3 zoning regulations. The proposed FAR of"nonexempt" floor area would be 0.42:1 for a straight LMD3 proposal.) o Reducing the number of driveways on East Bayshore Road from two to one. ~Offering a public benefit package that includes: (1) one year of funding the City’.s Embarcadero Road shuttle, (2)construction of, or contribution toward a Baylands gateway feature, (3) construction of a transit passenger shelter on site to complement the shuttle, and (4) modificatibns to Signalized intersections to improve traffic flow along the East Bayshore corridor (requiring coordination of four public jurisdictions). ~ Providing an underground.parking garage having 141 spaces, p!us255 surface parking spaces for a total of 396 spaces including 46 surplus parking spaces. ~ Removing 103 trees and adding 98 new trees. The proposed building would reach 36 feet in height, plus a roof screen for a total height of 43’9". The firstfloor area would be 53,125 square feet, and the second floor area would be 57,875. square feet. The applicant proposes a floor area increase of 68,346 square feet, which is 2.6 times the existing floor area of office and restaurant combined. Approximately 5,500 square feet of office floor area is proposed on the 1.84 acre parcel. On the 3.82 acre parcel, approximately 99,500 square feet of office }’loor area is proposed, plus a 5,000 square foot area for an employees-only caf~ and employee lockers. The preliminary landscape plan indicates new Oaks, Redwoods, fall color shade trees and flowering accent trees, as well as retention of the existing mature London Plane trees. along East Bayshore and Watson Court and the existing Casuarina trees bordering the commercial property to the north. The existing Eucalyptus trees along the front of the property are in CalTrans’ right of way and would also be retained. An outdoor employee recreational area is proposed. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The applicant’s correspondence to the Commission is attached to this report (Attachment A). It includes a project description, a list of Comprehensive Plan Policies that support the proposal, a Development Program Statement and a Development Schedule. Alternate Project Components As an alternative to the Planned Community development, staff proposes a rezoning of the 1.84 acre parcel to LM(D)(3) to restrict office area to a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.3" 1 on the.combined site. The LM(D)(3) development regulations would allow a development of up to 24,3 i 5 square.feet of office area on the 1.84 acre parcel. Redevelopment of the combined site would be subject to the Site and Design Review process, whereby a maximum of 73,932 square feet of commercial floor area (an increase of up to 32,278 square feet over the existing floor area of 41,654 sq,ft.) could be permitted on the.combined site. The proposed non-exempt project floor area (105,000 square feet) would need to be reduced by at least 31,068 square feet to meet the development standards of the LM(D)(3) district. The Alternate Project includes the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Research!Office Park and the-requested lot merger. Architectural Review Board The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed preliminary plans in a public hearing on February 7, 2002. Their comments guided the applicant to: (1) change the design from an L-shaped building to an arc shape, (2) enhance the building materials to display richer materials and better use of text.ures, and; (3) introduce a landscape feature comprised of curvilinear, native grass bands, The ARB has not reviewed the most recent plans submitted with the PC application. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¯ Comprehensive Plan Amendment The process for this amendment, necessary to allow office and office parking as the primary use on the restaurant site, is outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 19, "Master Plan". The process requires at least one public hearing by the Commission, with a majority vote on a resolution to forward their recommendation regarding the amendment directly to the City Council. The City Council must hold at least one public hearing on the matter, within 40 days of receiving.the Commission’s recommendation. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Planned Community Rezoning of land to Planned Community (PC) follows a unique set of procedures and standards, both of which are described in Chapter 18.68 and Chapter 18.98 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Commission first reviews a development program statement, plan, and schedule, together with preliminary plot plans, landscape plans, and design plan. If it acts favorably, the development plan, together with a detailed plot plan, landscape plan, and design plan are submitted for ARB review in the same manner as any commercial project. However, in this case, the City Council would review the Comprehensive Plan amendment request prior to ARB review of the PC. The development plan recommended for approval by the ARB is then returned to the Commission, together with a draft zoning ordinance, for its final review and recommendation to the City Council. The Planned Community zone ordinance identifies both the permitted and conditionally permitted uses. on the site and the approved buildings and site improvements, as well as setting a schedule for completion of the project. As noted, staff recommends denial of the Planned Community application. If the Commission agrees, staff recommends that the Commission forward their recommendation for denial of the PC directly to the City Council along with their recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. If the Commission supports the Planned Community application as submitted (or as may be modified), staff would still forward the Cormnission’s recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan amendment to the City Council directly. Should the Council approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment and offer a favorable consensus on the PC application, staff would then forward the development plan as proposed (or modified) to the Architectural Review Board for their review, and complete an environmental assessment of the Planned Community zone application prior to the second review by the Commission. Amending the Zonirtg Map to LM(D)(3) Staff recommends that the Commission recommend a rezoning of the 1.84 acre restaurant parcel to LM(D)(3) instead of the requested PC zone. A Site and Design Review process would be required for development. Chapter 18.98 of the Palo Alto Municipal Codeallows the Commission to initiate a change in a zoning district boundary "whenever the public interest or general welfare may so require." The option for applying the LM(D)(3) zone to the restaurant property was included in the public notice for this project, so no additional notice or hearing by the Commission would be required for the Commission to forward that recommendation to City of Palo Alto Page 5 the City Council. If the Commission finds that the change to LM(D)(3) is in accord with the purposes of Title 18 and with the Palo Alto Comprehens ire Plan, the Commission’s recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council within 30 days of the Planning and Transportation Commission public hearing. If the Commission finds that another less restrictive zone is more appropriate for the 1.84-acre parcel; the hearing must be continued tO allow additional notice to be given in accord with Section 18.98.060. For instance, the hearing would need to be continued if the Commission proposed the LM district without combining districts, since its 0.4:1 FAR and lack of a Site and Design Review requirement is less restrictive than the LM(D)(3) district. If a more restrictive zone (such as the LM(D)(5) district) were found to be appropriate, no additional noticing nor continuance of the public hearing would be required.. REQUIRED FINDINGS 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 general 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". Planned Community Zone The Commission may recommend a Planned Community zone change only if it finds that: 1.The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. 2.Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district willresult in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districtsor combining districts. In making the f’mdings required by this section, the planning commission and city council, as appropriate, . shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district. 3.The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. City of Palo Alto Page Staff would normally present the Commission with proposed findings .for the establishment of a PC district at the second Commission meeting after the ARB review. However, in this case staff recommends that the Commissioners review the project and recommend denial to the City Council. One of the reasons is that there is no intrinsic public benefit on the project site itself. Draft findings for denial of the requested Planned Community.for the 5.66 acre site are contained in Attachment E, attached to this report. Rezone to LM(D)(3). In accordance with Chapter 18.98 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, in order to approve a rezoning, the Commission must receive 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, and find that a . change of district boundaries would be in accord with the purposes of this title and in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Attachment D is a Resolution which includes findings in support ofrezoning the restaurant parcel to LM(D)(3), which would be in accord with the requested Comprehensive Plan land use designation, upon amendment by the City Council. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Previous Land Use Designations The 1981 Comprehensive Plan Map, prepared after the Council approval of the three- parcel Parcel Map, shows a Research/Office Park designation for the existing office buildings; and a "Service Commercial" designation for both the restaurant parcel and the third parcel at 2370 Watson Court. In 1987, the Council changed the land use designation of 2370 Watson Court from "Service Commercial" to "Research/Office Park" (via Council Resolution 6589,) The "Service Commercial" designation of the restaurant parcel remained unchanged. Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Designation Staff suggested that the applicant request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the restaurant parcel, since office use and associated parking as a primary use of the restaurant parcel do not meet the definition of"Service Commercial," defined as: "Facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying on customers arriv#zg by car. These uses do not necessarily beneJit from . being in high volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers or Downtown. Typical uses include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards, appliance stores, and restaurants, ~ncluding fast service types. In almost all cases, these uses require good automobile City of Palo Alto Page 7 and service access so that customers can safely load and unload without impeding traffic. _rn some locations, residential and mixed use projects may be appropriate in this land use category. " Staff determined that, even if the office area on the restaurant site could be limited to 5,000 square feet (which is the maximum officefloor area allowed on a C-Szoned site), the project would not meet the intent of "Service Commercial". The proposal includes approximately 5,498 square feet of office floor area on the 1.84 acre parcel, plus underground and surface parking on the parcel to serve the office use on both parcels. A "Research/Office Park" designation would allow an FAR ranging from 0.3:1 and 0.5:1, andwouldbe consistent with the land use designation on the adjacent parcels to the north, west and south. "Research/Office Park" is defined as: "Office, research, and manufacturing establishments whose operations are buffered from 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 from the proximity to employment centers, will also be allowed. Additional uses, including retail services, restaurants, commercial recreation, churches, and private clubs may also be located in Research/Office Park areas, but only if they are found to becompatible with the surrounding area through the conditional use permit process. " Comprehensive Plan - Employment District Diversity of Uses The project site is within the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor Employment District. The 1998 Comprehensive Plan does not state that the restaurant should remain in this employment district. If the parcel is designated "Research/Office Park", compatible commercial services uses such as a restaurant, would still be allowed. However, the failure 0f 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 well enough from the employment center to be economically viable on this site. (Or at least, a restaurant in .this location does not fare well during an economic downturn.) Text regarding all employment districts, under the Employment DistriCt Goal Lo5, notes: "Meeting daily needs such as child care, errands, and even eating usually requires trips by car. As redevelopment occurs, design changes .should shift these areas away from complete reliance on automobiles and promote pedestrian and bicycle connections to the rest of the City. Land use changes should provide a more diverse mix of services and activities. " City of Palo Alto Page 8 Policy L-46 of the Comprehensive Plan states, "Maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor" areas as diverse business and light industrial districts." If the parcel is designated ’°Research!Office Park", one of the primary land use consequences would be that auto sales and services would not be permitted on the site. The owner is not interested in developing the site for auto .sales. However,.a variety .of other uses besides once, including residential and childcare, would be allowed. Therefore, changing the land use designation of this parcel to "Research/Office .Park" would not necessarily result in less .diversity in this employment district. It is when .the development plans are reviewed that land use diversity should be evaluated. In the proposed Planned Community,, only office use and supporting employee amenities are proposed. ~. ..Baylands and Bicycles The text under Policy L,.46 further describes this employment district: "These areas provide valuable space for small businesses and support services. The design of new or redeveloped buildings and landscaping, particularly northeast of the Bayshore Freeway, should reflect the area’s location near the baylands. Connections to the nearby baylands should be strengthened by taking advantage .of views and improving bicycle and pedestrian connections to the open space area. " This text is important to guide redevelopment of this site. The implication is that buildings should respect the proximity to the baylands through.massing, siting and. landscaping, and that bicycle and pedestrian connections should be considered on the projdct site. Zone Change Options The LM(D)(3) zone is recommended for the restaurant parcel.because it is the same zone as the adjacent 3.82 acre parcel to be merged wRh the restaurant parcel. It is also the same zone as the surrounding properties. The parcel meets the minimum site area requirement, and the zone would allow a commercial FAR of 0.3"1 and a site coverage of 30%. The combined parcels would also meet the minimum five-acre parcel size required in the LM(D)(5) district, which also regtricts development to an FAR of 0.3:1. However, site coverage under the LM(D)(5) district would be limited to 15%, so that the proposed site plan would need to be significantly modified to reduce the current 23% site coverage by 8%. City of Palo Alto Page 9 An assignment of.the LM(D)(3) zone to this project would require the floor plan~ to be revised to reduce proposed office floor area by 31,067 square feet in order to meet the maximum FAR of 0.3" 1 (73,932 sqlft.) on tl~e 5.66 acre site. The applicant could reduce the second floor office area to achieve this without modifying the site plan, or could reduce the building footprint and increase landscaping on the site. An additional alternative is to replace office area with additional employee amenity floor area that would be "exempt" from FAR calculations. For example, a child care facility could be provided. Or the project could be redesigned to include a housing component reaching an FAR of.up to 0.6: .I independent of the commercial FAR allowance. The Site and Design Review process would be required in any case in accordance with the LM(D)(3) zoning regulations. A table indicating the conformance of the project plans with the LM(D)(3) development standards is attached (Attachment B) to this report. Annotated copies of Chapter. 18.60, LM District and 18.63, Combining Districts are provided with plans to Commissioners only, for reference. Chapter 18,60 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code describes the purposes of the LM zone as follows: "The LM limited industrial/research park, district is designed to create and maintain sites for a limited group of 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 prov.ided to adapt the site use and development regulations to meet the requirements of uses desiring smaller sites, or ~es which can accommodate to large sites with uneven terrain. ¯ The LM district is primarily intended for application tD sites identified for research/office pqrk use by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. " proiect’s consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies Staff agrees with the applicant’s assessment of thePC proj ect’s.consistency with the stated policies, with the exception of POlicy L-46: Policy L-46 states, "Maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diverse business and light industrial districts." The.proposed change of use from restaurant to office and office parking is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goal L-5’s statement, "Land use changes should provide a more diverse mix of services and activities." Increasing office use of the site by 68,400 square feet by essentially transferring FAR from the commercial service designated restaurant site to a combined site for exclusive office and office employee use, eliminating a public restaurant, represents a less diverse mix of land uses. It could also be argued the project is inconsistent with Policy L-42, which encourages development that reduces the number of auto trips for daily errands. The restaurant served a primarily lunch crowd from the surrounding offices. The lunchtime diners could City of Palo Alto Page 10 be absorbed by the remaining restaurants or employee cafeterias in the area, but they may also increase their travel outside the area to eat lunch. The following design-related Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs are applicable to the project: Policy L-43: [New development should] provide sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and corme..cti0ns to the citywide bikeway system within Employment Districts. ¯ Policy T-14: [New development should] improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. The City Transportation Division staff requires that a public bike path easement should be provided across the site to link the existing bicycle path east of the property to Watson Court. The path has not been incorporated into the project plans to date. Policy L-48: [New development should] promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The Architectural. Review Board has reviewed preliminary plans and offered comments towards meeting this policy. Policy T-23: Encourage Pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Policy L-70: Enhance the appearance of streets and other publicspaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system. The project includes retention of street trees and additional street trees. ~PolicyN-22: Limit the amount of impervious surface.in new development...Projects to reduce urban .runoff into storm drains, creeks, and San Francisco Bay. The net change of impervioussurface has not yet been calculated. The folloyving use-related Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs are applicable to. the project: Policy T-l: Policy L-5: Make land use decisions that. encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use; Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their scale and size; City of Palo Alto Page 11 Increasing the building height of the site to two stories and expanding the floor area by 68,400 square feet is not maintaining the scale of the City at this location. Impact of office area increase upon., housing and City facilities The proposed non-exempt office floor area (105,000 sq.ft.) of the Peery-Arrillaga Office Project would be 3.26 times the size of the existing office floor area on the site (since the existing office floor area on the LM(D)(3) parcel is 32,200 square feet.) The applicant has provided an estimate of 300 - 350 employees per shift on the site, but has not stated how many total jobs would be associated with the new office building. Staff has estimated 840 maximum jobs for the 105,000 square feet of non-exempt office area. Staff used a ratio of 8 employees per 1,000 square feet of floor area (8 employees is halfoftl~e 17 trips per 1,000 square feetfor office buildings over 100,000 square feet set forth in the San Diego Traffic Generators Manual.) The applicant has estimated there are approximately 39_0 building occupants for the existing use. However, that number includes restaurant patrons and is not a reflection of the total number ofp0tential jobs represented by the existing, Vacant buildings. The proposed increased office floor area and office employees would increas~ the jobs/housing imbalance in the city and potentially increase use of City facilities. This site has not been identified as a housing site on City documents, but the applicant was asked to consider a residential project or mixed residential and commercial project. The estimated housing and facilities fees for the Peery-Arrillaga Office Project, at a net increase of 63,400 square feet non-exempt commercial floor area, are $951,000, and .$256,000, respectively. The housing fees are not set at a rate that fully funds the below-~ market-rate housing deficit created by the project. If the project were to fully mitigate the impact on housing, at a rate of $60/square foot, the estimated housing fees would be $3,804,000. The Alternate Project, which could eventually lead to entitlements for 73,932 square feet of office area, represents a potential increase of 32,278 square feet of commercial floor. area from the existing development on the combined parcels (the 5.66 acre site.) It is actually an increase of 40,732 square feet of office area from the existing 33,200 square feet of office area. Office projects less than 100,000 square feet potentially have 10 employees per 1,000 square feet per the San Diego Traffic Generators Manual. Staff has estimated an increase of 320 office jobs for the net office area represented by the Alternate Project. This is potentially 520 less office jobs than the Peery-Arrillaga Office Project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has prepared two draft Environmental Assessments in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The documents provide an analysis of both the Peery-Arrillaga Office Project (in Attachment G) and the alternate project (in Attachment F), and recommends a Negative Declaration for the Alternate Project. The public review period to receive comments on the draft document is set to begin on City of Palo Alto Page 12 August 28 and will close on September 26, 2002, prior to the October 15,2002 City Council review of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The issues discussed in the draft environmental assessment for the Planned Community project (Attachment G) include: (1) Noise, including construction-generated noise, (2) Traffic, (3) Visual impacts including lighting, both exterior and interior, (4) Potential for archaeological resources on the site, (5) Vegetation, (6) Housing/jobs imbalance, (7) Grading and drainage, (8) Land Use and (9) Services. The applicant has submitted a traffic study, and is currently revising the study to meet the City’s Transportation. Division staff comments. The traffic study shows a total of 16 new net daily trips, 98 total AM peak trips and 37 PM peak trips associated with the project, as well as a significant impact on the San Antonio Road/Northbound US 101 off-ramp. The revised traffic study has been sent to the County Congestion Management Agency for their review and comment. Staff is also awaiting an acoustical analysis and a tree survey and report consistent with City requirements. Should the Council be in support of the Peery-Arriliaga Office Project, staff recommends the Council direct staff to revise the environmental assessment for that project (Attachment G) based upon a. comptete application for ARB review and to fully address the potential impacts and incorporate mitigation measures into the project. NEXT STEPS The tentative City Council date is October 15, 2002. The City Council would review the environmental documents and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the proposed project and recommendations from staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission. Staff is recommending that the Council adopt the Negative Declaration and Resolutions for the Alternate Project and deny the request for a Planned Community. COURTESY COPIES: Carol ~!ansen, 575 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cliff Chang, Hoover Associates, 1900 Embarcadero Road Suite #200, Pal0Alto, CA 94303 Peery-Arrillaga attn. Dick Peery, 2560 Mission College Blvd. Suite 101, Santa Clara CA 95054 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: ~Attachment F: Attachment G: Applicant’s Correspondence dated July 2, 2002 and August 1, 2002 Tables comparing project with LM(D)(3) and Parking regulations Resolution for Approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resolution for Approval of Rezone to LM(D)(3) Findings for Denial of requested Planned Community Initial Study Negative Declaration for Alternate Project only Initial Study for Peery Arrillaga Office Project City of Palo Alto Page 13 Project Plans and annotated copies of Chapter 18.60, LM District and 18.63, Combining Districts (Commissioners only) Prepared By:Amy French, Senior Planner Department/Division Head Approval:Lisa~roiei-~S~a{ef t¢la~ning Omcial City Of Palo Alto Page 14 Attachment G DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST. City of Palo Alto Department of Plamzing and Commttnity Environmen~ Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: Peery-ArriIlaga Office P~oject 4.Project Location: 5.Application Numbers: 6. City of Palo Alto, Plarming Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Amy French, Senior Planner (650) 329-2336 2300 East Bayshore 02-PC-01, 02_-EIA-3, 02-CPA-01 Project Sponsors’ Names and Addresses:A & P Family Investments, 2560 Mission College Blvd. Suite 101, Santa Clara, CA 95054 General Plan Designation:Service Commercial Zoning District(s):-LM(D)(3) and PC 9.Description of Project: (1) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of a 1.84 acre parcel fi:om "Service Commercial" to "Research/Office Park"; (2) demolition of the former Scott’s Seafood restaurant building totaIing 8,400 square feet developed under Planned Community PC 2785 on that parcel; (3) demolition of four office buildings totaling33,200 square feet onthe adjacent 3.82 acre parcel zoned Lhnited Industrial with combining districts (LM(D)(3)) and designated "Research/Office Park"; (4) creation of a 5.66 acre (246,442 square feet) site by merging the two parcels; (5) the establishment of a Planned Community (with a transportation-oriented punic benefit package) to construct a two-stow, 110,000 square foot office buiiding with one level underground parking and surface parking facilities providing 396 parking spaces in total, and removal and replacement of existing vegetation on the site; 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is located on the corner of EmbarcaderoRoad 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 developed with a two-story office building. CalTrans Right-of-Way, comprised of the Oregon Expressway exit loop and access road to Embarcadero Road, as well as a public bicycle path connecting to East Bayshore Road, borders the southerly edge of the site. The project site is 5.66 acres comprised of a 1.84 acre parcel and a 3..82 acre parcel. There are five existing structures with floo) area totaling 41,654 square feet on the 246,442 acre site, for an existing FIoor Area Ratio (FAR) of. 17:1. The 1.84 acre. (81,050 sq.ff.) parcel is developed with an 81400 sq.ft, restaurant (currently vacant) having an ~AR of. 1:1. This parcel was rezoned "Planned Community" (PC 2785) in 1974 to altow Scott’s Seafood 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 designatiotl of"Service Commercial" as shown on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Map. The service commercial designation allows a non-residential FAR of up to 0.4:1. The 3.82 acre (166,400 sq.ff.} parcel is developed with four office buildings (currently vacant) totaling 33,200 sq.ft. (or an FAR of .2:1). The buildings were last occupied by the Paio Alto Medical. Foundation. This parcel is zoned Limited Industrial with site combining districts (LMD3), which limits the FAR to .3:1 and requires a Site and Design Review process for approval of redevelopment On the parcel. The parcel is designated for "Research/Office Park" land use, which alIows an FAR ranging between 0..~.l and 0.5:1. redevelopment on the parcel. The parcel is designated for "Research/Office Park" land use, which alIows an FAR ranging between0.3:1 and 0.5:1. The site cmT-ently has four driveways .providing.ingress and egress (two at East Bayshore Road and two at Watson Court) and there is a 65-foot wide public utilities gasement running across the.northerly poltion of the site. There are an estimated 120 mature trees on the site, including significant Eucalyptus, Causarina and Pine trees that border the edges of the property. There are no protected trees oft the site. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). None. The City of East Palo Alto would review the signalization project (proposedas a public benefit in conjunction With the Plarmed Community rezone) as a separate project in accordance with CEQA. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFEC~rED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checldist on the following pages. X Aesthetics X Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources ? Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous. Materials Hydrology/Water Quality X Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources X X X Noise Populati0n/Housing Public Services Recreation X TCansportationfrraffic 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 will not be a significant effect in this ease 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 asignificant 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 projeet, nothing further is required. Project Planner Date Director of Planning & Community Environment Date 3 EVALUATION OF EI’~VIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 2) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well ’as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take ac’count 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 ope~’ational impacts. 3) 4) 5) 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 Impa.ct" entries when the determination is made, an EI~R is requ’ired. "N~gative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analysismay be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in aia earlier El3?, or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: c) 6) 7) a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are.available for review. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequateiy 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. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated Or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Lead.agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checldist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriat,e, include a reference to the page or pages where th.e statement is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8)This is only a Suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should. normally addYess 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 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources I.AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant . Unless Mitigated . Less Than Significant Irnpaet N0 Impact a)Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista? b)Substan.tially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) d) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundingS? Create anew source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1,2 X X AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural [esouree~ are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Mode[ (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared’ pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1 ¯ 1,3 (map L-9), 4. N/A a) b) e) X XConflict 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? 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: X X a) b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially fo 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)? 1,3 1,3 1,3 d)-Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?1 IV. BIOLOGiCAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or b) c) d) 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 a.r~d Wildlife S~rvice? 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 bf native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,.Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state conservation plan? 1,3 t, 3 1,3 1, 3, 5 X V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in ~he significance of an-historical resource pursuant to 15064.5? b) c) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologicfeature? 1, 3 (map L-7) 1,3 (map L-8) 1,3 (L-4, L-8) X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant .Unless Mitlg,’ited Less Than Significant Impact d)Disturb any human remains, including~hose interred I, 3 X outside of formal cemeteries?(map L-S), 6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:VI. Expose people or structures to potential substafitial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, .as deli~eated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issped by the.State Geologist for the area or based on Other substantial" evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geo|ogy~pecial ]Publication 42. ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? see below 3 (map X N-10) X3 (map N-S) iv)Landslides?3 (map ’ X b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?1 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? Be located on expansive soil, a~ defined in Table 18~!-B of the Uniform Building Code.(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? d) e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposa! of waste water? 3 (map N-5), 8 3 (map N-5), 8 X VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmea~ through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? i, 8 X Issues and Supporting Information Sources b) c) d) e) g) h) Create a significant hazard tothe 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 withinone- 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 env.ironment? "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? 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? 1, 8, 9 1, 8 2, 8, 9 N/A N/A I~npair implementation of or physically interfere with an 1, 3 adopted emergency response plan or emergency (map evacuation p!an?N-7) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,1, 3 injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where (map wildlands are adjacent to urbanized .areas or where N-7), 9 residences are intermixed with wildlands? Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact X VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge . 1, 3, 8, requirements? 11 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 3 (map substantially with groundwater recharge such that there N-2) 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)? e) Substantially alter the,existing drainage pattern of the site 1, 2 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? NO Impact X X X X X X X X X 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources , SonI’ees Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated d) e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern, of the site or area, including through thealteration 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? 1, 2, 11 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?. 1, 2, 11 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?1, 2, 11 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? N/A. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 3 (map would imPede or redirect flood flows?N-6) Expose people or structures to a Significant risk of loss,3(maps injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a N-8, N- result of the failure of a levee or dam?8) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?3(maps N-6, N- 8) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1, 3 1, 3 Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ¯ X X X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources 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? Soul’ces 1, 3 Potentially Significant Issu(s Potentially ,Significant Unless Mitigated XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) b) d) e) 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 tempor.ary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or worldng in the project area to excessive noise levels? Fo.r a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or worldng in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) b) 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? c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3,8 3, 8 3, 8 1, 8 N/A N/A 1, 2, 3 N/A N/A X Less Than Significant Impact X X No Impact X X X X X X 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Fotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact. N0 Im ~act 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 objecti~,es for any of the public " services: Fire Protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public facilities? see . ¯below 13 13 X X X XIV.RECREATION a) 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 migh~ have an adverse physical effect On the environment? N/A X 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 volum~ to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ’ b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a,level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 3 (maps T-7, T- s) 12 NIA X X X X X X 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources d)Shbstantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate parldng capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportati.on (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Potentially Significant Potentially Significant 1, 9 1, 2, 4 1, 3 ISSIle$Unless Mitigated ’ Less Than Significant Impact xvi. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) . Exceed wastewater treatment .requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) c) 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 drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient Water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a dete’rmination 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? g) comply with federal~ state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1, 3, 10 1, 3, 10 1, 3, 10, 11 1, 10, 11 10 3, 11 11 No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X 12 XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality Of the environment, substantially reduce.the habitat of a fish or wildlife, species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a~ rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California histbry or prehistory? b) c) 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 othe~ current Pr0jeets, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, eit.her directly or indirectly? ~ 1, 3, 5 X 1,3 1-12 X X SouRCE REFERENCES (Memoranda, analyses, reports, and assessments, noted below, pertain to project site): 4. 5. 6. 7. 10. 11 12. 13. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project. Project Plans, entitled "Peery-Arrillaga Office Project" prepared by Hoover Associates dated 3/21/02 with grading and drainage plan-dated 5/1/02. 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. City of Polo Alto~. Planning Arborist memorandum (forthcoming). Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Project Description, Environmental Assessment Worksheet and project-specific documentation (Draft Traffic Analysis by Fehr and Peer~ Associates, Inc dated March 2002) City of Polo Alto, Fire Department memorandmn. City of Polo. Alto, Utilities Engineering Division memorandum. ’City of P01o Alto, Public Works Department memoranduna. City of Polo Alto, Transportation Division memorandum. Parks and Co~umunity Facilities Impact Fee Study by DMG-Maximus, dated September 18, 2001 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I. Aesthetics The site is developed with five buildings. AS designed, the new building is two stories and would have significantly greater mass than the existing development. The mass would be visually reduced due to the existing trees in the CalTrans right of way and the proposed setbacks. The prop.osed Planned Community project is subject .to review by the Ar.chitectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council. No lighting plans have been submitted with preliminary designs, but there will be a substantial amount of glass on the building, which may result in increased light.frdm inside the offices at ni~t, and glare reflected from the sun from outside during the day. The project is required to meet the provisions of Polo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.64, Additional Site Development ~d Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial Districts. Section " 18.64.030 (a)(2)(A) requires the elimination of glare and light spillover bdyond the perimeter of the development. The applicant would be require.d to submit information regarding lighting to ensure any light and glare impacts of the project will be reduced 13 to a level of insignificance. II.A~iculture Resources The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland," "Unique Farmland," or "Fannland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources _Agency. The s~te is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Wiiliamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None required. Air Quality The redevelopment proposal will not have a significant effect on air quality. Even though more vehicle trips will be generated by the proposal than at present, the project will not, either individually or cumulatively, be of ascale to effect any regional air quaIity plan or standards. The project is not located near sensitive receptors. A temporatf’ increase in dust during demolition and construction, however, is likely but will be mimmized through conditions of approval, including the implementation of construction practices in accQrdance with BAAQMD regulations. Mitigation Measures: None required. IV. Biological Resources No endangered, threatened, or special status animal or plant species have been identified at this site. The project includes the removal of 103 existing trees mad replacement with 98 trees, for a total loss of five trees. Mitigation Measures: None required. Cultural Resources The site is currently developed with four office buildings, one restaurant.building, parking facilities and landscaping. The site has been disturbed as a part of the existing development. No additional area will be disturbed and there are no known cultural resources on the site. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the project site is located witgJla an Archaeological Resource Area of moderate sensitivity. Standard mitigation measures would be.required for the project to ensure that PuNic Resources Code, Sectii~n 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines are followed. V[. Geology and Soils The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site located in a seismic risk area, subject to strong hound shaking in the event of an earthquake. Strong ground shaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe earthquakes. No lmown faults cross the project site. Map N-5 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan indicate the site has expansive soils and is located within an area having.high potential for surface rupture along fault traces and potential for earthquake induced lmadslides where sloped (although the site is not sloped). A geo~echnical investigation report would be required and all new constructmn will b. e.re.qu.ired to comply with to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at mmn-mzmg seismic risk and preventing loss of life and proper~ in the event of an earthquake. The City’s required standard conditions of approval ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will not be si~nificant. Site soil modifications are not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. The Volume of soil to be removed has not been Stated, but would be significant to create the proposed underground parking area. Project conditions of approval would require the applicant to submit a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of PuNic Works prior to issuance of any gading and building permits. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measures: None required. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality i4 Attachment H Tuesday, July 02, 2002 Chairman Pat Burr Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto~ CA 94301 O~3¢~,q~e~",~ ot ~.iaflning anc~ Co~trnunit~ Environment Dear Chairman Burt, We are pleased to submit our final application for.a Plam~ed Community rezoning of the 5.66 i" acre site located.at Embarcadero/101 off Watson CoUrt in the City of Pal0 Alto.1 It is our intention to develop this site with a 110,000 gross square foot R & D office building, with underground parking, at an important entrance to our community. The site is currently occupied by the. formerScott’s Seafood Restaurant and three office buil~lings accessed off Watson Court. Zoning on the site is a combination of Planned Community (PC) on the Scott’s Seafood site and LM (D)(3) on the Watson Court parcels. A Planned Community zone change is requested on the entire site to accommodate the proposed project. Scott’s Seafood Restaurant rehabilitated the former Stickney’s Restaurant in the Town and Country Shopping Center and moved to that location on May 1, 2002. The existing office buildings located on Watson Court were most recently occupied by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, but since their move to tl~e E1 Camino Real facility PAMF no longer has .a need for outlying office space. The physi :al condition of thege buildings is poor, and the re-use/marketing potential for a restaurant the size of Scott’s Seafood is virtually non-existent in this location] The East Bayshore/Embarcadero Road area ot~the City has some very unique characteristics. As the primary entrance to the City’sEmily Renzel Baylands Nature Preserve, this proposed project provides one of the few remaining sites in the City to accomplish a superior project, with on-site and baylands related benefits, aiong the entire peninsula. A PC application was originally submitted in August 2000, and has been interrnittently under review by staff and the Architectural Review Board since this time. In tlae many meetings that have ensued with staff and the last preliminary review before the ArChitectural Review Board on February 7, 2002, significant site plan and design changes have occurred based on City staff,, ARB, and community member comments throughout this process. [n addition, the public benefit package has been revisedto reflect the City’s desires to incorporate project and baylands related improvements, and specifically traffic and transportation improvements tiiat directly relate to this area. The foIlowing includes a summary of design modifications made as a result of staff and community input, and Architectural Review Board member comments. ~ The site is generally bounded by Watson Court, East Bayshore.Road, Embarcadero Road, and Interstate 10I in the East Bayshore Road area of Polo Alto. Existing development includes office and restaurant buildings,2 Food service in this area has been problematic, primarily because breakfast and dinner clientele are limited. The applicant intends to provioe an on-site cafeteria and generous outdoor recreation/eating area for the-tenants of the project. 2560 Mission College Blvd. o Suite 101 o Santa Clara, California o 95054-1291.~ (408) 980-0130 o FAX (408) 988-4893 Site Plan The origina! proposal showed ~ 90 degree "L" shaped building that created an entry space toward Watson Court. The revised building shape is a splayed 120 degree building configuration to open this entry court toward the main intersection of Embarcadero and East Bayshore. The surface parking area now has a continuous Ioop around the building with aturn-around entry loop at the end ofthe Watson Court cul-de-sac. The parking lot entrance adjacent to East.Bayshore has been eliminated. The on-grade parking has also been reduced by 1~0 spaces, reflecting the smaller building size and to increase landscaped area Within the project. These changes haveimproved the building solar orientation by significantly reducing direct soutl{ern exposure on building faces on the project. It ~lso creates an outdoor recreation space toward Watson Courtwith maximum solar exp.osure for empIoyee use and enjoyment. Architecture ARB comments atboth the study session and preliminary review reqested that the building facade be lighter, less rigid, less repetitive, and incorporate richer materials in order to project the natural light and airiness of the baylands. Based on those comments, the architect has made a number of architectural changes, as follows: The face of the building against the freeway off-ramp, with the highest public visibility, hi~s been curved to soften the building and project a more natural character consistent with the Baylands environment. This building arc is composed of two basic materials. The first includes a rough rock-like precast wall with punched windows and altematirtg rhythms. Growing out of this mass is a curved Water-like metal panel curtain wallthat exposes itself more as it approaches ~he main intersection and culminates into a floating ship- like prow at the corner. The introduction of round columns at the first floor effectively lighten the structure and provide greater diversity within the project. Like the natural elements of the Baylands, the building interlaces a variety of materials and texturesincl~ding rock, vision glass, spandrel glass and metal. The window openings arediverse and include sinai1 punched openings toward the f~eeway and large framed openings at the entry court. Curtain wall glass and metal i~ introduced at strategic areas such~ as the main dorner, the main entry cylinder and along the south face of theb~ilding, Landscaping The intent of the landscape design is to provide .an attractive planting palette that creates a pleasant working environment for t~e future tenants while identifying this development as a’.superior "gateway" project to the Palo Alto Baylands. In all, the plan retains a total of 17 existing on-’site trees, and adds 98 .new trees to the site. Specific features of the plan are as follows: 2 The fifty-five existing mature Eucalyptus trees located ~vithin the Cal Trans right-of way along the entire perimeter of the property will be. retained, effectively screening the project from Interstate 101 and Embarcadero Road. Tlaese trees will be ~ugmented with abackdrop of native shrub species occuring inthe Bayl ands. Seven existing mature London Plane trees along East Baysore will .be retained ~-. and additional new London Plane trees will be planted within the parking area" and along the east side of the buildi~g to continue an established streetscape planting scheme. Meandering linear bands of native grasses indigenous ~o the Baylands are to be ¯planted at the intersection of Embarcadero and East Bayshore Road. At the center of the bands the plans suggest either a dry stream treatment with native .fieldstone boulders and washed riverstone or a contrasting ban ~ of native shrubs. The meandering grassy band continues along the east face of the building and terminate~ adjacent to the main circular entry drive. Along the axis of the native grassy band and at the east facade of the building native oak trees will be planted to enhance the native grass and sltrub plantings. A ~riangular recreational lawn area with maximum solar axis 1s proposed in the foreground of the grassy native band and another undulating lawn area is shown -at the coruer of East B ayshore and Watson Court that reflect~ the fluid, des ig.n of the native grasses. In addition to significant design changes to the project, a revised traffic impact analysis has been stibmitted on the project that includes the latest City traffic comats, and a scenario that includes the possible construction of the IKEA store in East Palo Alto at University Avenue and Interstate 101. A summary of the trip generation analysis is contained on page iii of the traffic impact analysis. Section 18.68.060 of the Plaimed Community district regulations reqnires that the following findings be made by .the Planning Commission and City Council in establishing any new PC: (a) (b) (c) The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibiIity to allow the proposed development. Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in publi& benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulilions of general distrticts or combining districts. The use.0r uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district, shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. Potential findings for the Commission and Council that respond to the above points are as follows: Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Current square footage on the size includes an 8,400 square foot restaurant (former Scott’s Seafood) and 33,200 square feet of office. Zoning o~ the site is a combination 3 of Pla~medCommunity (PC) on the Scott’s Seafood site (approximately on~-third of the site) and LM (D)(3) on the Watson Court parcels. The Comprehensive Plan Designations on the site are Retail Commercial and Light Industrial. Completion of the project will result ina lot combination to a single 5,66-acre parcel. Due to the mixed Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations a PC zone change is requested on the entire site to accommodate the proposed project. The site conditions are extraordinary in this Iocation. Rarely does the City have the opportunity to see aggregation of 5.66 acres of property a.t an important City ia:~tersection, and one that is at the gateway of a designated employment and open space entry to the City. The site planning, landscaping, and architectural opportunities are significant. Specific Comprehensive Plan Policies supporting this proposal are numerous: -.~ The. area is referred to in the Comprehensive Plan as the "East Bayshore Employment District." No reference is made to retain retail in this area. Policy L46 of the Land Use and Community Design Section of the Comprehensive Plan (page L33) states as .follows: ~°Maintait~ the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diverse business and light industrial districts." Under .the Land Use Definitions Section/CommerCial/Research Office Park. it states that tlae "Maximum allowable floor area ratio ranges from 0.3 to 0.5, depending on site conditions." The proposed pla~ is approximately .45 F-AR, well within the range of the FAR deemed appropriate in the comprehensive plan for this area. The proposed level of underground parking allows for 34 percent landscaping on the site, 30-50 percent more than that normally found on projects of this nature with surface parking only. 4. The project supports Policy L-71 under Gateways (page L-44), which states "Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101. A gateway feature will be incorporated into the project either on-site; or a contribution toward an off-site location, at the City!s discretion. 5. Policy L-75, pagg L36 under Parking Lots states that projects should "Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or underground whenever possible." The proposed building has underground pa~king, which allows for minimal coverageand significant landscaping. 6. Policy B-12, page B-7 of the Business and Economics section of the Comprehensive Plan states the following: "Encourage the private sector to participate in partnerships with non-profit or punic agencies to provide community benefits and services that would not otherwisebe made available." 4 The generous public benefit package proposed in conjunction with this project inchides the following: First year funding of the City’s Embarcadero Road shuttle system. Construction on-si~e or contributi6n/possible constr~ction toward an off-site B~y!ands ’~a~eway feature,.an importantamenity not currently provided in this area 8fthe City. " Construction of an on-site transit oriented amenity, such as ~ passenger shelter. to com~limer~i~the Embarcadero Road ~huttle system. hatersection sigaaalization modifications to the following intersections:. Embarcadero/East Bayshore Road; Laura Lane/East.Bayshore Road; San Antonio/East Bayshore Road; Pulgas Aventie/East Bayshore Road; and Clarke Street!East Bayshore Road. These signal timi~{~[mpr0vements, will substantially improve traffic flow along the East Bayshore corridor. These modifications " require the cooperation of four punic jurisdictions: Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, City of Palo Alto, and the City of East Palo Alto. Such punic, benefit contributions would not be available.under a standard zoned project In addition, the in facilities fees, a substantial contribution toward both the City’s housing and facilities project will be providing housing mitigation fees of $951,000 and $256,000 programs. We believe the project is very compatible withthe existing Comprehensive Plan, the Ba)iands l~aster Plan, and with adjacen~ office and commercial uses in the area: Since our initial discussions with staff and the Architectural Review Board, we have Worked diligently to comply with design changes and traffic information requests t.laat would allow this application to proceed toward approv;d. We look forward to prodeeding on this project in a timely mariner. Best Regards, PeeryiArrillaga Frank Behest, City Manager Steve. Emslie, Director of Plamaing and Community Environment JohnLusardi, PlarmNg Manager Amy French, Project Planner 5 ¯Develol?ment Program Statement ’ Per section 18.68.080, the following is a description of the proposed project: (b) The PC application is necessary in order to dev.elop.the site into an integrated: Research and Developmen*Joffice use in this location. The current mixed zoning (Planned Community for the former . ¯ restaurant portion; the remainde.r for office use) must be changed in order to allow any redevelopment of the site. The attached letter of application addresses many comprehensive plan provisions furthered.by this proposal. ’ .... The proposed use is for a single oi multi-tenant office building of 110,000 grosls square feet, with underground parking, an on-site cafeteria, and generous landscapedarea for outdoor eating and recreational purposes. ()A total of 396 parking spaces will be provided, including 141 u~derground spaces and 255 surface parking spaces. Primary access to the project will be off Watson Court, In conjunction with’t.he project developme~lt, the applicant is .to provide the~following public benefits/amenities: 1.First year funding of the City’s Embarcadero Road shuttle system. ’ 2.Construction on-site or contribution/construction 0ff-site ioward a Baylands gateway feature, an important amenity not. currently provided in this area of the City. ¯ 3.Construction of anon-site transit oriented amenity, such/is a passenger shelter~ tO compliment the Embarcadero Road shuttle, system. ~ 4.Intersection signalizationmodifications to the following {ntersections: Embarcadero/East Bayshore Road; Laura Lane/East Bayshore Road; San Antonio/Eas} Bayshore Road; Pulgas Avenue/East B ,ayshore Road; and Clarke Street/EnsUe Bays/tore Road. ~These signalii,~tion timing improvements will substantiaiiy improve t~iffic flow Mong the East Baysho~e corridor. Thes~modifications require the gooperation of four public jurisdictions: Santa.~lara County, San Mateo Cotinty, City of Palo Alto, and the City of East Pal0 Alto. .. ;.:.. ¯ ii}D eve],6pment Schedule 7:.,.,:,:.,".~. .",~ 4..,’.,".:~"..’. ...... .In compliai~;;’with Section 18.68.17;, the follov~ifig is the>r~Si~sse.d development schedule for the project: (a)Based on public hearing process for. Planning Commission, Ar&hitectural Review Board, and City Council ewews PC z0nin a ~ri~vals ai~ ~ticipated in [ate fall, 2002.!Building pe.rmit issuance is anticipated inr. ,. " ,g-~P " ; ....¯ ....~ ....+~,ctionis~imticnated to take approximately 18 months,..:early spring, 2002. Demotmon, excavanon au~ ~u~,~,r . with-project completi0n, projected for late summer, 2004. i. (b)No phasing of the project is proposed or anticipated. 2560 Mission College Blvd. o Suite 101 o Santa Clara, California o 95054-1291 o (408) 980-0130 o FAX (408) 988-4893 Mel orandum To: Amy French CO: Steve Emslie; Lisa Grote From: Carol Jansen Date: 08/01/02 Re: 2300 East Bayshore Based on our last meeting with the applicants on the projec{, Wynn Firth, and Frank Benest, and my subsequent discussion with you and Steve Emslie, we felt it would be important to identify ,in the staffreport the options available to the Plamling and_Transportation Commission in their initial deliberation on 2300 East Bayshore. i~{::6f all, it is our understanding that a Comprehensive Plan amendment is now determined to be ~@~!~ii0n ~,h_e project, and that staff concurs that a change t~om service commercial/retail on the ~:g.~d~tt s Seafood restaurant parcel (approximately one-third of the total 5.66 acre site) is ~)~{~:igiven the lack of retail viability in that area. " ~i{~i~; Siaff suggested rezoning to a .3 FAR fo~ the entire area (reduced project) as an alternative St:~i~:S~endation. Should that occur, it would be important to fully explain in the staffreport the ~i~:g~di~roject and possible staff alternative for commission review. ~{i:~i~posed project under the PC zoning would allow for a .46 FAR, or a l l0,000 square foot Bii[iding. The implications of that are as follows: Underground parking is proposed, and at .46 FAR is economically feasible, and provides for a more attractive site plan with substantial landscaping and reduced surface parking. A PC zone requires a public benefit package that has been discussed at length with staff, and is generally proposed as follows: First year project.funding of the Embarcadero road City shuttle system; Signalization re-timing of 6 intersections along East Bayshore Road that will significantly improve traffic flow along this corridor; Development of a City gateway feature on Embarcadero Road, with possible signing and re-striping that will permit a reduced vehicular lane configuration east of the gateway feature and installation of bike lanes. Such improvements would create a strong, pedestrian/bicycle friendly environmental entrance to the City’s Baylands preserve. August 1, 2002 4.Complete ARB, Planning and Transportation Commission, and City Council review of the project design~ use, and public benefit proposal. In addition, full payment of housing mitigation, parks,.~and community facilities fees based on the City’s recently adopted fee structure would be required. The current project includes a fee of $941,000 alone for housing mitigation. In contrast, a reduced project under standard zoning would allow for the following: reduced project to approximately 74,000 square feet at .3 FAR; All ~urface parking, as a .3 FAR can be easily parked on-site and the reduced square footage may not justify the cost ~for underground parking; No required public benefit package; Reduced housing mitigation, parks, and community facilities impact fees. As we see it, these are the clear-cut choices before the City’s decision-makers, and we feel it important that. the staff~report address them in that malme.r. . .~ Finally, since there are no significant identified envkonmental impacts of the project at .46 FAR, it is iogical that there would be none at .3 FAR, or any other reduced project scenario’ staff might propo.se. Since any Comprehensive Plan amendment and subsequent rezoning, whether to a standard LMD zone or Planned Community zone is a final decision by the City Council, it is important to the applicant that the choices available to the Council be identified, and some CC direction be established pri6r to any requirements for redesign of the project, if feasible. It seems well within the Comprehensive Plan and zone change hearings before the Planning and Transportation Commission and C!ty Council to resolve the land use and develQpment issues.prior to ARB consideratior~. Can you please confm-n that, and includethe City Attorney’s office in your discussion? I appreciate your hard work on this project Amy and look forward to hearing back fi’om you. ’Also, if the staff does not opt to define the choices before the P & T C and City Council as discussed,in this _ m?morandum can you let me know so that I can forward it in the form of a letter to the Cormnission and Council? . Can we discuss briefly prior to the report being finalized? Also, I Would like to re-confirm the P&TC hearing date on this item for September 4, 2002. Thanks for your response.