This item was moved up on the Agenda at the request of the Commission. CONSIDERATION OF ADDENDUM NO. 16-01, TENTA.TIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2016-178, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT NO. 16-04, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 16-10 AND 16-11 FOR A PROPOSED MIXED USE, IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING 747 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS, 16,900 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL TENANT SPACE AND A 150-ROOM HOTEL LOCATED ON AN APPROXIMATELY THIRTY- ACRE SITE AT THE NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF BIRCH STREET AND STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD.
Chair McGrade stated he is satisfied the Addendum was the appropriate review and staff followed the appropriate process.
Commissioner Gross has no concerns with the Addendum or CEQA process. He has heard from the Community and believes there are 4 points of concern: Density, Traffic, Parking and Building Height. He is encouraging the other Commissioners to consider a modification to the project that serves both the community and the developer.
Commissioner Schlotterbeck: reviewed all information related to the 2001/2003 General Plan update and there were no concerns. She has no concerns with height or density for the mixed use project related to the code or the General Plan.
She feels a full EIR is not needed and provided the following Public Resource Code sections to support her determination:
- 15084(d)(5) (Preparing a Draft EIR) – The City opted to use previous EIR.
- 15153(c) (Use of an EIR from an earlier project) – The City could have used a Negative Declaration, opted for an Addendum.
- 15164(a), (c) and (e) (Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration) – The City solicited public input, but wasn't required to circulate the Addendum for public comment.
- 15183.3 (Streamlining for Infill Projects) – Based on the lack of significant impacts, this project likely would have resulted in a Negative Declaration and the City opted for an Addendum.
She is comfortable with the Addendum. She stated the City's job is to process the application and determine whether it meets the General Plan, zoning etc. The Planning Commission determines how the project meets the findings for the application. Her own review of the plan found it fits 80% of the goals of the General Plan and that there is flexibility in the density. Most of her concerns were with Building B and she has sensitivity to neighborhood. She has provided seven conditions of approval she feels will help alleviate some of the concerns from residents and guides the plan to a slightly different outcome moving forward.
Vice Chair Willis, has concerns with the density of the project reservations relative to the size of Building B, about the height of the parking structure and he agrees with the CEQA process.
Commissioner Fox stated that the most important things have been said. She thanked the people for coming out and sharing their concerns. She is not sure that an EIR would have told them anything different, she feels the project is too big and therefore doesn't support the plan as it is today.
Chair McGrade said he read every letter,document and appreciates public input. He has problems with the traffic and the density. He feels the project meets the General Plan goals but an issue for him is the density and the traffic. He feels Building B has the biggest impact to the residents and wants a reduction of density. He has no issues with the density of the hotel or Building A. Wants to see some modification to massing on Building A, especially the corner element. Asked Commissioner Schlotterbeck what percent reduction she would think would be appropriate.
Commissioner Schlotterbeck stated she would like building B to be limited to three stories. She asked the applicant to consider townhomes or condos.
Vice Chair Willis approves of the hotel. Likes the idea of condos for Building B. Density is his issue with the project.
Commissioner Gross agrees with Schlotterbeck about condos versus apartments.
Commissioner Fox feels the height should be on Building A and not on Building B. The hotel is not an issue for her.
Chair McGrade stated there is consensus with the hotel and Building A as submitted and request to modify Building B. Is there a density number the applicant would modify to? Would 225 or 235 on Building B be a number the applicant would consider? Chair McGrade invited the applicant to the podium to address questions from Commission.
Ray Lawler: Does the commission have a number or suggestion?
Chair McGrade: If it were to become a three-story building how many units with that be?
Ray Lawler: 203 units. That would be a great concession. Would the Commission allow them to take a recess so they could discuss? We cannot consider townhomes for the project.
Chair McGrade called a 15 minute recess at 8:32 pm.
Chair McGrade reconvened at 8:53 pm.
Ray Lawler presented as an option to keep Building A and Hotel as is and reduce Building B from 5 stories to 3 stories, reducing units from 285 to 230 and maintain a small sliver of building closest to the office building would be 4 stories.
The applicant's architect provided an explanation of approximately where changes could be made.
Commissioner Schlotterbeck asked about parking for the reduced size building.
City Planner Lilley: The applicant will need to submit modified plans and address these issues.
Director Crabtree wanted to clarify the Commissions' direction. Building A stays at 462 units and Building B would go from 285 to 228 with a reduction of 57 units. Hotel stays as submitted.
Commissioner Grosse agrees with the reduction but wants to see it on paper. Suggests continuing to another meeting.
Chair McGrade: Wants to bring back to the next meeting. If the range was with 215-225 units for Building B with 3 stories on the north side .
City Attorney Flower Looking for clarification on next course of action.
Director Crabtree: To clarify, the Planning Commissions direction to the applicant: a redesign with a range of 215-225 units with 3 and 4 story building. If staff confirms the redesign complies with code and environmental findings, they will bring draft resolutions to the next meeting.
Chair McGrade: Yes, that is accurate and that is the direction the Commission would like to go at this point.
Director Crabtree: Intention would be to make all attempts to bring this back to May 23, 2017 regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Schlotterbeck: Is this appropriate time to discuss ideas for Conditions of Approval?
City Attorney Flower: Now would be the time. Subject to the understanding that we don't know the modified project in its entirety.
Commissioner Schlotterbeck: Proposed Conditions of Approval
- Parking within the structure include residents AND their guests.
- Provide shelter against rain/sun at the adjacent bus stops to promote transit us.
- Decrease auto dependency by having an Auto sharing opportunity.
- Consider implementing adaptive technology prior to the project.
- Dog waste bags and receptacles.
- Plants not toxic to humans or animals.
- Light intrusion - make sure lights are facing down.
- Construction limited to Monday through Saturday 7am to 7pm. as well as trash pick up.
Director Crabtree: These points will be added into draft conditions.
Chair McGrade: Commission, any comments?