PC 051111 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Sapone said yes. He pointed out that traffic on Valley Avenue and Santa Rita Road and traffic safety at that intersection were cited as important impacts that had a bearing on the decision for the Home Depot proposal. Heather Truro echoed Mr. comments on the three issues of traffic, air quality, and traffic safety. She stated that she wanted to make sure that traffic studies are done on both peak hours and weekends, as, opposed to the Home Depot project, this is for residential development and the impact would be different from that of a retail project. She noted that there would also be a difference between building the units after, versus prior to, the construction of El Charro Road proposed for 2014. With respect to air quality concerns, she noted that Sites 8, 11, and 14 would be affected by cross-town traffic due to the distances to BART, the two freeways, schools, and Safeway. She added that residents of these units will most likely have children walking to schools, which would entail going through some very traffic-intense areas. Chair Narum noted that the site numbers have been changed and clarified with Ms. Truro that the areas she referred to are the former Home Depot site owned by Auf der Maur, which is now Site 7; the Kiewit property, Site 10; and the Legacy Partners, Site 13. Mr. Dolan clarified that some sites have been removed and staff has renumbered the remaining sites, which has caused a fair amount of confusion. He noted that the Notice of Preparation map has the new numbers, but staff has decided to go back to the original numbering and have gaps in the sequence, as people are having issues with the new system. not relevant to the Housing EIR. Ivan Hendren, representing Roem Corporation in Santa Clara stated that they recently acquired control of the Downtown mobilehome site, which is currently not on the Housing Element list but which they would like considered for residential housing. He requested that it be included in the EIR scope at this time instead of being added later on and retroactively having to update the EIR. Mr. Hendren stated that the site has very strong potential arguments to be added on to list. He indicated that the site was initially on the list and was taken off because a three-story, 30-unit-per-acre development would not fit into the fabric of the Downtown area. He noted that they spoke with several local architects and verified that a two-story building is possible for a 30-unit-per-acre development, especially if subterranean parking is utilized. He noted that the current zoning on the site is Commercial Freeway (C-F) District, which allows for very impactful uses of 40-foot height limits and a 40-percent Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and that hotels, motels, office, medical office, and self-storage facilities can be built there without a Conditional Use Permit. He added that they ran some numbers for medical office buildings, which would incur five to six times more than the number of parking stalls for a 30-unit-per-acre residential development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, May 11, 2011 Page 8 of 17