HomeMy WebLinkAbout0219.091. ,
•
April 11, 1991
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
P,lo Alto, Callforni,
DRAFT EIR fOR OlD MILL SPE(lr~N IN MOUNTAIN VIEW
Members of the Council:
Report in Brfef
This report and attachments relate to the referral by the City of Mountain
Vfew of a Draft Environmenta1 I~act Report for i Generil Plan Amen~nt and
modification to the Old Mill Specific Plan.
Background
The City of ,.10 ~.lt. has received frOll the City of Mounhin View a Draft fIR
dated February 1991. The Draft EIR relates to changes in the approved
Specific Plan for the O;d Mill area of the City of Mounta;n View. Cople. of
the Draft ElR were distributed I. the Council packet of March 21, 1991. .
The Draft EIR was reviewed by the 'l"nnin9 Commission at the .. etlng of March
27, 1991. A description of the project and staff comments are contained In
the attached staff report to the Planning Com.ission dated March 22, 1991.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Coomisslon reviewed the Drift EIR on March 27, 1991, and by
consensus concurred wit" the staff COMments and .ade the following additional
c.OCIIDents :
I. The traffic iepacts on Palo Alto should not be dismissed without
sufflcl~nt doc ... nt.tlon or discussion.
l. Water i~icts and de .. ~s were not adequate11 ~ddre$sed given
current and past drought conditions.
3~ The insufficfent parking at the Cal Train Station and need fOT
more parking should be .-ph,sized.
OIR:219:91
. k"
'''';~l~ . ;
.... ....;, ---------
o
ltecQlII'l'lendatfon
Staff recommends tnat the City Council transmit to the City of Mountain View:
I. T~e rec .... nd.tlon (In tn •• ttacnod st,ff report) to,t new nouslng
developod on the Old Hill site be requirod to pro_Ide 10 porcent
of the units at below ~arket rates;
2. The transportation comments contained in th! attacn!d report to
the Plan"ing C..misslon.
3. The Phnn;"9 Camnli ss i on cOlmlE'nts.
4. Any ot~er coamenti that the Council believes are appropriate.
Respectf.11y submlttod,
'I .' ~{,I .' /i t~~ ....... ," ....... l<)-:<.."'·L~·.-c~{/
f~ES [. Gl LLI L~O ::J:-''''
V
XEHNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Plan~ing ~nd
Community Environment
( J\JItE FLEMING t! \ Ass1 stant Cit, fila ger
Attachments: c~ 22, 1991, PlannIng C ... ls,'on staff report
cc~ leslie Gould, City of ~ou"tain View, 2100 Funston Place, Oakland~
CA 94~02
(ity of Mountain View Planning Department, AttA: lynnie MeTena,
P. O. Box 7540, Mountain VIew, CA 94039
lonnie Spenser. Greenacres II. 7SS San Antonio Road. '66. Palo Alta.
CA 94303
GreeNleadow Commun,ty Association. 303 Parkside Drive, Palo Alto.
CA 94306
Jane Barrett, C~ar1eston Meadows Neighborhood assotlatlon, 4115 Park
Bouleyard, Palo Alto, CA 94306
JD~" Fernandin, Walnut 'rove Homeowners A$SOC1itiD~, 3873 Dunca~ Place,
PlIo Alto, CA 94306·4549
C"R:219:91
p: \CJI1r\OldHf 11
4/11/91
Page 2
•
•
""rcn 22, 1991
PlAIINlNG COf'IIISSJON
Pal. Alt., Cilifornia
C· , " l' 1 -" ''','1 .., -,,"::".h' -.. ". ' .. \. ..,,; j "' , .. ' '. "
QRAfI EIR fOB OlD MILL SPECifiC PLAN IN MOUNTAIN YI[W
~TS o~ the Co.missian:
Report in Brief
lhls Is I report on I referral by tne City of Nou.tain Vie. of I Draft
£nvl.o .... tal Impact Report (fiR) for I General Pl •• AmendDent Ind
-.dlftcltion to the Old Mill Specific Plan, The Planning Commission is
requested to review the draft and forward ccaments to the City Councii.
Bar;kgrqund
The project, is defined i. the Draft EIR, proposes to oodify a portion of the
Old Mill Are. Precise Pian and General Pl.n. Currently, the precise plan
would .llow retention of the 1IO,OOQ·s~u.re·foot Old Mill Specialty Center
retail space l con$tT~t1on of I fDur-stary. se.500-squlre-foot office
building, Ind the Idditlon of I 240'rooe, 150,OOO·.quaro·foot hotel.
lh. proposed -.dlflcatlon would divide Irea B of tne eXi,ting precise pIa"
1ato two areaS f with. new lrea being deslgnate4 IS area 0 (see [xhiblts 2, 4
and 5 i. the Drift [IR). Area 0 would include the strip shopping buildings
Idjacent to the Showers Drive/Califoroia Street intersection, the existing Old
Mill Specialty Center retail space and the currently vacant building formerly
housing the fitness Center. The proposed precise plan would allow for
deBelition of the existing facilit1es wlthl. Irea 0 Ind construction of up to
650 to 775 residential units, 50,000 square feet of office spate and 35,000
square feet of retail space. Building height. would be froe two to eight
stories. The plans for the re .. I"lng Ireas of the Old M111 Specific Plan will
not be changed.
A previous propo.al for a significantly larger cORIercl.l and office project
ha. been dropped. The Oraft EIR was delivered to the Planning tOnli.sion
oe.bers on March 18, 1991. The public rev1 .. period for comment. on the DEIB
ends on April IB, 1991. City Council review Is scheduled for April 8, 1991.
p: \Jg\PCIIVDEI R
J!l
3/22/91
Page I
t .--
___ .... _ sc 1 ali
ISSUES Of tQl!tEBH
Staff does not have I.Y aajor concerns with .Ither the project Dr the content
of the DrIR. We support addltlonll housIng I. the .r., and bell.ye the
oYlrall 'OPlct. of the revll.d precis. plan to be less thin the I."cts of
f.l1 dav.l.poent under the .xlstlng precise pl.n.
Tbil project provld ••• n o •• r.ll reglon.l benefit ty loc.tlng housing In In
.re. Wh.rl there I •• s"rpl •• of jobs oyer housing. Reduction of the
jobs/hou.lng I~llanc. In the .Id-penlnsul. lrel Is I stlted goal of the
&old.n Triangle Tlok Forte.
The project .nIl hl.e fewer tr.fflc 1.,lct. than If the existing retlll space
wer. full, occupied, whll. re.Dy,l of the option to construct I hotel will
further redvc, the project's IOPICts fr .. the currently approyed precl •• pl.n.
Specific trlnsportltlon c .... nts Ire IS follow.:
Pig, 41. J. the third f.l1 sentence, the refer.nce to the City of ,.10
Alto being I p.rty to the agreement should be del.ted, .s ,.10 Alto Is
onl, perlph.r.lly Invol.ed. For c .... nts on the p.r~lng sp.c.s for
C.ITrol., ple.s. refer to c .... nt. for p"ge 68 Ind APpendix 0, below.
"CIt 52. The best .. thod of det'T"1Ii.lng future traffic due to Palo ~.lto
development is to U5~ annual growth fictOTS for i~ttrsecliGns, IS
d,te .. lned by '"10 Alto's Citywide land Ule a"d TrIOsDort,tio. Study.
ThiS. growth factors are ,vIllable fro. the lransportltlon Dlylslon.
Page 56. Th. 0.5 percent .sslgn-.nt to the routes 10 the Del Nedio
neighborhood SeelS too .. all, considering the lOS E and f conditions .t
S.n Antonlo/EI C .. lno Rell. Pl."e reevIl.ate.
Page 66. ~e support the .Itlgltlons whlc~ Increas. bicycle and
pedestrian Iccess to the proposed CalTro!o statio..
'age 68 and Appendix D, Tabl. 5~ Pilo Alto dD!S not want oyerflDw
parking fro. • future S.n Antonio C.1Tral. stltlon to penet·.te Into
resldentl.l neighborhoods on the elst (Bay side) of Al •• Street. If
Insufflcl.nt parking were proylded, .nd I pedestrian underplss were
provided at the north (west) end of the station, this overflow could
occur. Even though the need for 200 p,rklng spices has been d.teMlined
b1 C.1Tral. to be sufficient for current condition., this number should
be reev.luated I. ,lew of the pot,ntlal for subst,ntl.ll, Incre.sed
CaITr.l. ridership, due to loprovea.nts expected In the 1990s (e.g., new
stations 10 S.n Francisco Ind San Jose. lOre train., better reglon.l
coordln.t Ion).
Reglrdlng the projected trip genorotlon of 345 dilly lut ... bll. trips
for the S.n Antonio st.tlon .. ntlooed In Appendix 0, the 200 proposed
parking spac •• , by the.selv.s, should produc •• t le •• t 400 dally trips,
p: \.lg\PCMVIIE U
JG
3/22/91
'age Z
•
"
o
Rtc".,.ndat1gn
St.ff rec ..... d. th.t the PI.nnlng CDROI •• lon forward to the City Counoll for
~vlew and tron .. ls.lon to the City of Mo,ntoln View:
The rec .... nd.tlon that new housing de •• loped on the Old Mill olte
be roQ~lred t. proylde 10 p.rc.nt of the unfts at bel .... rk.t
rates;
The tr.n'portltlon c .... nt. ao outlln.d aboye; and
Any other c .... nt. on tne Oraft EIR that the Cooni.sion wi she. to
.. te.
R.speotfull, sublltted,
!)~f 4t1c6-.c
.S E. IHLlItAHI)
(~nager, Plinn Ing Projects
KEMHETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Co.ounlty Eny!ronment
cc: le.ll. GoUld, City of ~ntalD VI .. , 2100 funston Plice, O.kland, C~
94602
City of /Iountoln VI .. Phnnlr,g Cep.rtllent, «« Cutro Str •• t, P.O. Box
7540, Ko~tll. flew, CA 94039
lonnie Sponser, 'reonacres II, 765 San Antonio Road, '66, f.lo Alto, CA
94303
Gre ..... dow Cooaunlty Assocl.tlon, 303 Parks Ide DrlYI, fal0 Alto, CA
94306
Jane Barrett, Ch.rleston Meadows Neighborhood Association, 4115 Park
Soule.lrd, Palo Alto, CA 94306
John fernlndi~t Walnut Grove Homeowners Assoc1ation t 3873 ~ncan Pllce.
P.lo Alto, CA 94306·4549
p:\jg\l'CllVD£IR
JG
3/22/91
Pige 4
1 -0
EXCERPT
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 1991
'.
\
AGENDA ITEM S Review and comment an t~e City of Mountain View Draft fIR
for the proposed Old Mill Specific Plan.
Chainnan Marsh: Our job tonight is to review and comment on the draft
[JR. and forward our comments to the city council. We have some
representatives fr~ the City of Mountain View, and we welcome yOY.
leslie Gould: I a~ Leslie Gould~ and I am just here to answer any
questions you ma1 have.
Commissfc~er Cullen: Ky main concern is about the trees. It ~eemed to me
that that is a large number of so-cal Ted heritage trees to be removlng
frotll ttle area~ However, I not;,e that the largest number of them are the
Black Acacias. They are considered one of the worst trees you could
possibly have. They devour all of the n~trients from the s~il so that no
other trees can s~r~i~e within any proximity tn them. So if you are 90ing
to ke~p trees, don't worry too ~uch about the alack Acacias, or g~t an
arborfst in to advise you on them.
I ~. still a lfttle concerned about the circulation~ but I guess that-is
Mountain View-'s concern. rt is still contrhed. I am glad yOli are
tutting back on the size of the project, howe~er, if it were in Palo Alto,
I don't think ~e wo~ld approve a ten-story residential development. I
think the staff did a brllliant job of analyzing tne D£IR, and saved us a
lot of work.
COmmissioner Christensen: I have a concern about th~ number of units that
were allocated to the below-market-rate (8MR) prograrn~ rt seems to me
that Mountaia View shouTd conSider very strongly allocating at least
10 percent of the units. particylarly since the rates at which you are
talking about being BMR units, $185,000·$207,000, that ~ould not be BMR in
Palo Alto. People would not qualify, so tnat was a particular problem]
had. [am, however, very happy to see that tne project bas shifted from
being a hotel and commercial office center to being primarily high-density
housing. That 15 a beneficial shift.
I had a little trouble understanding the trafflc analysis and whether
those 200 parking spaces from the Callrain station are in the analysis or
not~ I could not tell about that, but it does seem as thcugh some of the
traffic fmpacts have been underestimated, particularly the impacts in Palo
Alto ~aYe been underestimated~ in fact. they have realTy been dismissed as
being outslde of Mounta1n View~$ jurisdiction, so you are not gOing to
worrl about them. I found that a little caval;er~ particular], since it
is .Y street and the fntersections that J travel through every day that
are 90~ng to be the ones tne most severely impacted.
I will make my wsual complaint about environmental impact reports with
regard to its discussion about water. r find it almost impossible to
believe that We can ha~e [IRs come forward these days and sa) that there
is an adequate water s~pplJ for all of these projects. given our past
fi~e-year expErience. So water is somet~ing that all of the [lRs should
03/27/91
-1-
•
, ,
be tak1ng I more carefu'~ comprehensive look in a broader sense than they
tend to do in these EIRs.
knmissioner tiyber~ ] want til reiterate the staff comments on the. parklr,g:
at the CalTrii~ station. It does not seem like that is 5uffic~ent. J ,an
just guess what is going to ~appen there In about twc or three years, once
improv~d trains, hopefully. start to corne down the track.
Commissioner Cullen: I natice in this OEIR, which 1s not a huge amount of
development, there ii supposedly in imvact on fire and police services. I
i~ stru<k by the fact that we hive had so •• ny DEIRs with projects l.rger
than this, and there is no impact on fire and policf services. J know
that has nothing to do with Mountain View, but] wouid like to get it into
the record so tnat we are i little more careful ~hen W~ Took at the next
OfIR that we get where it says. -No impact.-
Chairman Marsh: The action in fr~nt of us is to forward the D£IR to the
city ~ounc~l for transmission to the City of Mountain View. There are
three staff recommendations that go along with it, as listed in the staff
report. One responds to the concern regarding housing; the second WJuld
incorporate the transportation cOIJIT'Ients in the staff report, arid of course
the other comments fro~ planning commissioners that have been made
tonIght.
(By consensus I it is to be passed Ilong to the city cou~cil.)
I have one final comment. It seems to me that the combination of uses
contemplated at this site, that iS I the fntense housing density along with
some retail services and childeare for those residences, along with the
transit services, tan make for an very exciting little cDmmunity in the
ft.lture. It will be very interesting to see it dev"eloped. Thank you for
comiDg tonight. Ms. Gould.
03/27/91
·2-