P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 10 of 32
Parking
Lots 1-14 will be constructed with two-car garages and an approximately 534-square-foot5 two-car garage will be constructed on the north side of the Barone’s home. The new private hammerhead street will provide 10 off-site parking spaces, and the commercial lot will have a 13-stall parking lot – six standard-size spaces, four compact spaces, two electric vehicle charging spaces, and one American with Disabilities space.
Grading and Drainage
As noted, the portion of the project site being redeveloped is relatively flat. However, there is a gradual slope to the south and a relatively steep downward slope leading to the Arroyo del Valle channel to the north. Grading is proposed in areas on the relatively flat portion of the site to maintain residential structure heights similar to adjacent residential properties when creating flat pad lots, in addition to grading for bio-retention areas, a parking lot, and the hammerhead street.
Grading for building pads is expected to reach approximately 6.5 feet below the surface and excavations for utility lines and stormwater infrastructure would reach as much as approximately 9 feet below the surface. Grading would likely result in approximately 4,200 cubic yards of material being exported from the site.
The Arroyo del Valle channel is north of the project site, flowing east-west to convey stormwater and other flows. The project would include construction of residences towards the northern portion of the project site with those proposed lots (Lots 8-14) being set back approximately 20 feet from the top of the existing bank; there would be no modifications to the bed, bank or channel of Arroyo del Valle. The project would have storm drain systems and connections, shown on the civil plans in Exhibit B, described in more detail in the Analysis section, below.
Building Architecture/Design
Residential. The new single-family homes are designed to include architectural features found in other existing buildings along St. John Street and in Downtown. Most notably, the applicant is proposing traditional architecture – e.g., entry porches, Juliet balconies on some units, large, recessed windows with grids on the front and back elevations, brick veneer and stucco materials, and composition hip roofs. The massing of the buildings is broken up using projected or recessed building walls and dormer windows on the end units which provide variation in the wall planes. The buildings would feature a stucco and brick combination, and composition roofing. The proposed colors and materials of the buildings are a light cream color with dark accents (window trim, doors, garages, and exterior lighting fixtures) and would complement the existing Barone’s residence and the neighborhood. Figures 8 and 9 provide illustrations of the general plan type for the new homes on Lots 1-14.
5 The garage square-footage is included in the proposed 1,360-square-foot addition to the Barone’s home.
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 11 of 32
Figure 8: Plan Type 3A-3C – Front and Rear Elevations
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 12 of 32
Figure 9: Plan Type 3A-3C – Side Elevations
Existing Home. The project includes a two-story addition of approximately 1,360 square feet to the north (rear) of the existing Barone home. The first floor of the addition is an approximately 534-square-foot, two-car garage with an approximately 303-square-foot storage area. The second floor is an approximately 523-square-foot attic/storage space. The addition would be set back a minimum of approximately 4 feet from the new north (rear) property line, a minimum of approximately 12 feet 7 inches from the east (new private street) side property line, and approximately 34 feet 2 inches from the west side property line. The colors, materials, height, windows, and architectural style of the addition will match the existing home. Figures 10-12 show the existing and proposed elevations.
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 13 of 32
Figure 10: Single-Family Home Elevations (Existing)
Figure 11: Single-Family Home Elevations (Proposed) – East/Right (New Street) and West/Left Sides
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 14 of 32
Figure 12: Single Family Home Elevations (Proposed): North/Rear Elevation and South/Front (no change to front elevation)
Commercial. The new commercial buildings, totaling approximately 3,125 square feet in area between the two, will be designed to be in keeping with other commercial downtown buildings.
The buildings will be constructed with natural color brick veneer and have brick wall bands and trim around the windows, large storefront doors and windows on the St. John Street elevations.
Building B will have a large glass facade facing the plaza to add variation to the design.
Transom windows are also incorporated over the glass doors and metal canopies on the south elevation of the buildings to further distinguish the commercial spaces. The commercial buildings are separated by an approximately 1,568-square-foot bricklayer plaza, which will provide seating, planters, and a decorative metal arch pedestrian entry.
Figures 13-22 provide full and focused streetscape views of St. John Street, plaza design, and building elevations.
Figure 13: Full Streetscape View
New Home (Lot 4)
St. John Street Townhome Barone’s Home New Com. Bldgs. and Plaza Rose Hotel New Homes (Lots 1-3)
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 15 of 32
Figure 14: Focused Street View W/ Rose Hotel
Figure 15: Focused Street View w/ Barone’s Home and a St. John Street Townhome
New Homes (Lots 1-3)
Rose Hotel
New Home (Lot 4)
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 16 of 32
Figure 16: Plaza Design
PLAZA
St. John Street
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 17 of 32
Figure 17: South Elevations of Buildings A and B (St. John Street)
Figure 18: North Elevations of Buildings A and B (Parking Lot)
Figure 19: Building A – West Elevation (New Private Street)
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 18 of 32
Figure 20: Building A – East Elevation (Plaza)
Figure 21: Building B – West Elevation (Plaza)
Figure 22: Building B – East Elevation (Rose Hotel)
Please refer to Exhibit B for plan details.
ANALYSIS
General Plan Land Use and Policy Conformance
The Retail/Highway/Service Commercial Business and Professional Offices General Plan land use designation allows for mixed-use development. The allowable density range for mixed-use is 20+ DUA6. Approximately 1.8 of the 2.3 total acres of the project site cannot be used for development. The project’s density of 6.5 DUA would be less than the maximum density
6 The General Plan is unclear as to whether or not 20 du/ac is intended as a minimum density; however, the City has historically interpreted Planned Unit Development projects, with densities less than 20 du/ac, to be consistent with the General Plan Mixed-Use designation.
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 19 of 32
allowed by the mixed-use land use designation, and consistent with the General Plan’s allowable density.
The Arroyo del Valle and adjacent riparian area are located on the most northern portion of the project site, which is designated as Public Health and Safety with Wildland Overlay. This type of land use designation in the General Plan does not allow for development and is generally applied to privately-owned open space/undevelopable areas with public access not allowed.
No development is proposed in this area, it will remain privately owned by the new subdivision’s association, and public access will not be allowed. There is an easement between Lots 11-12 for maintenance access to this area. As proposed, the project is consistent with this designation.
General Plan Policies
The following General Plan policies and programs are relevant to the proposed redevelopment of the site. The project, as proposed, is in keeping with General Plan policies that emphasize mixed-use development, such as Policy 12 and implementing Programs 12.3 and 12.4.
Industrial, Commercial and Office
Policy 12: Preserve the character of the Downtown while improving its retail and residential viability and preserving the traditions of its small-town character.
Program 12.3: In the Downtown, implement mixed-use development which incorporates higher density and affordable residential units consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan, where feasible.
Program 12.4: Encourage second-floor apartments above first-floor commercial uses, and encourage live-work units in the Downtown. Also allow mixed-use development in the Downtown where residences are located behind commercial uses, subject to the limitations specified in the Downtown Specific Plan.
Sustainability
Program 2.1: Reduce the need for vehicular traffic by locating employment, residential, and service activities close together, and plan development so it is easily accessible by transit, bicycle, and on foot.
Program 2.3: Require transit-compatible development near BART stations, along transportation corridors, in business parks and the Downtown, and at other activity centers, where feasible.
Overall Community Development
Policy 4: Allow development consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map.
Program 5.2: Consider surrounding land uses and potential impacts when changing land-use designations.
Residential
Policy 9: Develop new housing in infill and peripheral areas which are adjacent to existing residential development, near transportation hubs or local-serving commercial areas.
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 20 of 32
Policy 10: Provide flexibility in residential development standards and housing type consistent with the desired community character.
Program 10.1: Use planned unit development (PUD) zoning for residential properties that have unique characteristics or to accommodate development that does not fit under standard zoning classifications.
General Plan - Housing Element
Goal 1: Attain a variety of housing sizes, types, densities, designs, and prices which meet the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.
Policy 6.4: Ensure that new housing developments and improvements to existing housing (e.g., rehabilitation, remodels, and additions) integrate sustainable design and energy efficiency features, including a reduced lifecycle carbon footprint of materials required for the development of housing (i.e., remodels, additions, and new units), reduced energy and water consumption and efficiency, and expanded use of renewable energy sources.
Goal 14: Provide adequate locations for housing of all types and in sufficient quantities to meet Pleasanton’s housing needs.
Open Space
Policy 20: Preserve designated open space areas for the protection of public health and safety, the provision of recreational opportunities, agriculture and grazing, the production of natural resources, the preservation of wildlands, water management and recreation, and the physical separation of Pleasanton from neighboring communities.
Downtown Specific Plan
Land Use
Goal: Preserve the character and development traditions of the Downtown while improving upon its commercial and residential viability. (Options 1, all-residential, and 2, mixed-use).
Downtown Specific Plan
Downtown Specific Plan: Policy Direction for 475/493 St. John Street.
The owner-initiated request to include the project site’s redevelopment potential was made towards the end of the DSP update process in 2019. The City Council considered the redevelopment potential of the project site at two meetings (one in April and one in May 2019), to provide policy direction on this and other components of the DSP, as well as at the public hearings for the project in August 2019.7 In those discussions, the City Council suggested the project site allow for mixed-use as an effort to activate side streets off Main Street with commercial uses, consistent with other policy goals for the DSP.
Furthermore, City Council articulated its expectation for the project site to retain the same amount of commercial square-footage if the existing restaurant were demolished, and that
7 Minutes of the April 16, May 27 and August 20 City Council meetings are available upon request or online.
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 21 of 32
residential would only be allowed behind or above a commercial building8. These concepts are also addressed in other policies of the DSP, including Policy LD-P.20 for the Downtown Commercial District. City Council did not change the DSP land use designation for the project site, though adopted the updated DSP with a map annotation referencing the following DSP Land Use and Design Policy:
LD-P.15: 475/493 St. John is designated Downtown Commercial; The property may redevelop to a mixed-use project, which includes residential with approval of a PUD application, which will rezone the property and evaluate the appropriate density and design (a residential only project is not desirable). The existing residence is required to remain.
The existing house would remain, and redevelopment would require PUD development plan and rezoning approval.
Policy LD-P.15 does not specify the ultimate zoning for the site, and the applicable zoning district in the Pleasanton Municipal Code would be PUD-Mixed-Use (PUD-MU) for a mixed-use project. In the DSP update discussion, the Council was clear the specific merits of redevelopment of the Barone’s site are to be discussed and evaluated through consideration of the PUD, to provide direction on the type of redevelopment desired at the project site. In other portions of their discussion, the City Council mentioned re-zoning of the site to Mixed Use-Transitional (MU-T). MU-T is the designation that applies to the east side of Peters Avenue and north side of Old Bernal, and it is unclear if the Council’s remarks were intended to suggest the type of development on this site, which in not on Peters but is located where Peters intersects with St. John Street, be more similar to the range of uses; (generally mixed residential and lower-intensity commercial) found along Peters Avenue.
Regardless, during the DSP process, including as a discussion point of the public surveys and workshops held early in the process, Peters Avenue was identified as a street that could ultimately transition to have a broader range of commercial uses; and respondents noted the strong desire for downtown to have more shops and restaurants in commercial areas, in general. 9
Other DSP Policies
In addition to Policy LD-P.15, key DSP Land Use and Design Policies relevant to this project include:
LD-P.5: Commercial Frontage. Require new development that includes residential in the Downtown Commercial, Mixed Use – Transitional, and Mixed Use – Downtown Districts to also include ground floor commercial uses fronting the street. Ground floor residential uses are subject to Policy LD-P.20
LD-P.6: Protect and enhance the pedestrian-friendly quality of the Downtown Commercial area by locating building facades at the sidewalk’s edge to maintain a defined streetwall and ensuring that building entrances and display windows are frequent and oriented to the street. Incorporate outdoor spaces such as outdoor dining
8 In its 2019 policy discussion about this site, at least some Council members acknowledged that the restaurant would not necessarily be replaced with an identical use.
9 Survey Results report are available upon request or accessible online.
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 22 of 32
areas and plazas into building design along street fronts outside of the public right-of- way, and for dining, upper floors as feasible.
LD-P.20: Downtown Commercial: Ground floor residential may be located behind commercial uses on properties without frontage on Main Street in the Downtown Commercial district provided that:
• Street fronting commercial space is required, with a minimum building depth of 50-feet to ensure viable commercial uses;
• Re-development sites have no net loss of commercial square footage; • Residential at the rear of the site designed to minimize visibility from the commercial street-front;
• Corner lots maintain a commercial character on secondary frontages to the maximum extent feasible; and
• The proposed residential is fully parked on-site.
LD-P.55 Transitional Streets. Maintain the mixed residential/commercial character of side streets at the edges of the commercial area to serve as a buffer to adjacent residential neighborhoods.
LD-P.58 Parklets and Pedestrian Activity. Encourage the creation of temporary or permanent parklets (extensions of the sidewalk, usually over an on-street parking space that serves as a small public park, bicycle parking, or space for outdoor dining) and mini plazas along Main Street and side streets with the purpose of linking the Main Street commercial blocks and promoting pedestrian activity.
The commercial buildings would have ground floor uses fronting St. John Street, both buildings would have a depth of approximately 52 feet and would not reduce the amount of commercial square footage over that which exists for the restaurant and indoor event area today (existing square footage is approximately 788 and approximately 3,336 square feet (inclusive of ancillary structures) is proposed. A plaza for outdoor seating will further expand the available area for commercial activity, promote pedestrian activity and further link St. John Street with Main Street. Apart from the existing Barone’s residence, the new residential development would be behind the commercial buildings and fully parked on-site. The mixed-use project would serve as a buffer and transition to adjacent residential developments.
As proposed, the project conforms to the DSP policies noted.
Historic Resources and Certificate of Appropriateness
The existing residence is listed as a historic resource in the General Plan because of its age.
A historic resource evaluation for the project site determined the existing single-family house, in addition to all other structures on-site, were not considered historic resources. However, the distinctive character and quality of the home were recognized by City Council in their discussion of the site, and in prior actions of the City Council with respect to Downtown buildings, and consistent with Policy LD.P.15, it would be retained.
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 23 of 32
Demolition of buildings in the Downtown considered to be a Structure of Primary or Secondary Importance requires issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Planning Commission10. The Downtown Specific Plan’s Historic Resources Policy No. 5 prohibits the demolition of any building found to be a historic resource unless the building is determined to be unsafe or dangerous, and if no other reasonable means of rehabilitation or relocation can be achieved. The historic resource evaluation determined the house and all other structures on the project site are not historic resources; therefore, those structures proposed to be demolished would be consistent with the DSP policy as they were not found to be a historic resource.
Zoning and Use Conformance
The subject site is zoned C-C (Central-Commercial), Downtown Revitalization District. The proposal seeks to rezone the property to Planned Unit Development – Mixed-Use (PUD-MU), which would allow for single-family residential and commercial uses on the subject site. The rezoning would permit and conditionally permit those uses listed in Section 18.32.030 and
18.32.040 (One-Family Residential) of the PMC for the detached residential units and permit and conditionally permit those uses listed in Section 18.46.030 (Mixed-Use-D) of the PMC for the commercial buildings.
The site has been operating as a restaurant and event location. As proposed, the project would allow additional commercial uses within two buildings in addition to providing a plaza for seating and outdoor use. The MU-D District uses are best suited for this project site since it is less restrictive than the MU-T District while at the same time allowing more limited/somewhat less intensive uses than permitted by the C-C District. The MU-D uses would promote more opportunity for active uses, though a condition of approval has been added to prohibit office and medical type uses in an effort to encourage active retail/commercial uses at this location, while also providing the property owner some flexibility to tenant the space with a range of commercial uses. The subject property provides a transition between Main Street’s commercial uses to the east and residential uses immediately to the west, and this transitions/buffering between commercial and residential uses, including the residential uses to be located on-site.
Staff finds the commercial buildings and single-family homes to be appropriate uses for the project site.
Development Standards
Commercial. The commercial development is consistent with the MU-D District, which has identical development standards to the properties existing C-C District (refer to Table 1 for comparison). The site development standards of the MU-D District allow structures to be built to the property lines on all sides of the subject lot and allow a maximum FAR of 300-percent and a maximum height of approximately 46 feet (measured from finished grade to the midpoint of the roof). Given the location of the commercial parking lot on the northern portion of the commercial lot, the commercial buildings are setback approximately 74 feet from the northern property line. Building B has a zero-lot line on the east (Rose Hotel), both commercial buildings have a zero-lot line on the south (St. John Street), and Building A is set back approximately 2 feet from the western property line. The maximum FAR for the commercial lot is approximately
31.3 percent and the maximum height of the structures are approximately 19 and 21 feet, significantly below the maximum FAR and height requirements of the MU-D district.
10 Resolution 85-501 identifies various Structures of Primary and Secondary Importance, and includes the existing Barone’s residence and restaurant building as Structures of Secondary Importance, which are “Contributors to Downtown Pleasanton’s Distinctive Character”
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 24 of 32
New Residential. In order to allow flexibility in designing a project compatible with the physical features of a property, no minimum property development standards (e.g., setbacks, height, and FAR) apply to a PUD District. The residential front, side, and rear yard setbacks vary given the size of the lots and their orientation. The closest residential zoning district to use as a comparison, based on lot size and residential type, is the One-Family Residential zoning district, minimum lot size 6,500 square-feet.
Table 1 provides site development requirements for the MU-D and R-1-6,500 zoning districts.
Table 1: Site Development Standards Comparison
Site
Development
Standard
Commercial Buildings Residential Buildings
MU-D
Requirements
Proposed
Commercial
Buildings
R-1-6,500
Requirements
Proposed
Residential Lots
(Lots 1-14)
Lot Size (Sq.Ft). No min. size 10,648 sq. ft. 6,500 sq. ft. 2,250-3,290 sq.ft Floor Area Ratio
Excludes garages 300% max. 31.3% 40% max. 103-147%
Building Height:
Measured from the
average grade
covered by the
structure to the
mean height
between the roof
ridge and eave.
46 ft. max.
Building A:
19 ft.
Measured from
finished grade to
the tallest point.
Building B:
21 ft.
Measured from
finished grade to
the tallest point.
30 ft. max.
Lots 1-3
28 ft., 5 in. to 31 ft., 2 in.
Lots 4-7
29 ft., 4 in. to 30 ft. 4 in.
Lots 8-11
28 ft., 11 in. to 30 ft., 1 in.
Lots 12-14
29 ft. to 30 ft., 3 in.
Setbacks:
Measured from
building wall to
property line.
Front None Required
Building A & B
0 ft.
23 ft. min.
Lots 1-3
20 ft
Lots 4-7
23 ft., 2 in.
Lots 8-14
23 ft., 3 in.
Sides None Required
Building A
58 ft (East)
2 ft. (West)
Building B
0 ft. (East)
39 ft. (West)
5 ft. min. on
one side/
12 ft. min.
combined side
Lots 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, & 13
one-foot building
separations
Lots 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, &
14:
5 ft. / 6 ft. combined
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 25 of 32
In the past, the Commission has requested information on other residential development projects in the downtown, as a point of comparison for front yard setbacks and height. Table 2 provides a comparison of properties in the immediate vicinity of the project in downtown.
Table 2: Residential Front Yard Setback and Height Comparisons
520 St. John St.
and 738-762
Peters Ave.
(Kimberly
Commons)
446-458
Peters
Ave.
719-735
Peters
Ave.
524-540
St. John St.
(St. John
Manor)
501-587
St. John St.
(St. John Ct.
Townhomes)
4791
Augustine
Street
Front
11 ft., 6 in.
(single-family
homes)
6 ft., 6 in.
(multi-family unit)
7 – 8 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft. 26 ft.
13, 19, & 20 ft.
Height Two-story
26 ft., 8 in.
Three-
story
31 ft., 11
in.
Three-
story
34 ft., 8
in.
Two-story
28 ft.
Two-story
26 ft.
Three-story
29 ft., 6 in. and
30 ft.
Existing Single-Family Home. The closest residential zoning district to use as a comparison, based on lot size and residential type, is the One-Family Residential zoning district, minimum lot size 10,000 square -feet. Table 3 provides site development requirements for the R -1-10,000 zoning district compared to the existing Barone home with the proposed addition.
Table 3: Development Standards
R-1-10,000
Zoning District Barone’s Lot
Minimum Lot Size
Area 10,000 sq.ft. 10,387 sq.ft.
Width 80 ft. 89 ft., 4 in.
Depth 100 ft. 116 ft., 2 in.
Structure
Front setback 23’ min. 24’
Side/both setback 5’/20’ min. 10’/32’
Rear setback 20’ 4’
Height 30’ max. 20’
Floor area ratio (FAR) 40% max. 49%
Lot 7
5 ft., 4 in / 6 ft., 4 in.
combined
Rear None Required
Building A
74 ft.
Building B
47 ft.
(attached trash
enclosure)
20 ft. min.
Lots 1-3
27 ft., 2 in.
Lots 4-7
15 ft
Lots 8-14
20 ft. min.
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 26 of 32
A PUD development plan allows flexibility in applying Municipal Code standards to achieve an innovative overall plan for project sites and the area. The applicant developed the current site plan with input from the Planning Commission during the Work Session and numerous discussions with staff prior to and after formally submitting the PUD application. The applicant was considerate of the position of the buildings to provide adequate setbacks from the property lines and new street frontages and maximized the usability of the site. The applicant has opted to retain the existing residence on-site and has provided on-site guest parking spaces for the residential development. Single-family home lots in the downtown are generally smaller in area, though have houses which are similar in size to homes found in neighborhood subdivisions. While the subject site is relatively large, the Arroyo del Valle and adjacent riparian area occupies a significant portion of the northern part of the project site which limits the allowable developable area. Due to these project constraints, smaller lot sizes with house sizes commonly used for new single-family home development make the floor area ratios for the new homes higher; however, the visual appearance of the new homes is in keeping with the Barone’s home and existing adjacent residential homes. Story poles have been erected on-site, where feasible, to demonstrate the overall size and height the project.
Staff finds the proposed siting, massing, and size of the units are appropriate for this site and would result in an attractive development for this area of downtown. The buildings would be in keeping with the scale and massing of the surrounding homes on St. John Street and Peters Avenue. Furthermore, staff is recommending conditions of approval prohibiting accessory structures and additions to the residential units.
Site Layout and Urban Design Features
As proposed, all residential units and the commercial parking lot would be accessible from the new private street, which provides a site layout for the existing home and proposed commercial buildings that is oriented to face St. John Street and (with the new commercial buildings) retains an “active frontage.” New garages and driveway access would be located at the front of the new homes within the subdivision, but these would not be highly visible given the site’s access and layout of the development. New internal sidewalks are proposed throughout the project for walkability; and entries, porches, and front doors face St. John Street or the private street. The existing driveway entrance is located and configured to provide adequate line-of-sight viewing distance for vehicles and to facilitate efficient ingress/egress to and from the proposed project site. The internal street meets City standards for emergency vehicle access and turn-around. Adequate access would be provided to all structures for police, fire, and other emergency vehicles. Staff finds the site plan is appropriate and supports the overall configuration and site design.
Architecture and Design
The DSP states the design of new buildings should draw upon the primary exterior features of the downtown’s traditional design character in terms of architectural style and materials, colors, details of construction, height, floor area, bulk, massing, and setbacks. These elements should be consistent with those elements of buildings in the immediate neighborhood, and the design of the new buildings should not represent a significant departure from the existing neighborhood character. The Downtown Design Guidelines (DTDG) outline parameters related to new construction of residential and commercial structures and provide guidance related to architectural details, materials, and windows.
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 27 of 32
The color schemes generally comprise of light cream earthtone colors, with darker accent colors, with stucco and stone veneer siding for the residential and natural color brick veneer for the commercial buildings. The design guidelines adopted for the Downtown stress the use of traditional materials, finishes, colors, and detailing.
The stucco, siding, and painted brick wall materials, garage doors, and porch railings are consistent with the guidelines and are evocative of residential and commercial architecture seen throughout the Downtown, including in both historic buildings and newer construction.
Window treatments (sills and trim) meet the guidelines’ suggestions for traditional details in such features. The applicant has provided architectural detailing and accent relief on the building elevations to break up the facades and provide visual relief. The DTDG state detached garages are preferred and should be placed at the rear of the lots. All of the homes would have attached garages which will be well screened from St. John Street.
The house plans and commercial design offer significant detailing and articulation, and the form/shape of the buildings are visually interesting. The materials and colors are attractive and will blend well with the surrounding developments based on similar finish schemes found on other existing residences and commercial buildings in the Downtown. The new residential buildings are two-and-a-half stories in height and the commercial buildings are one-story in height, which offer a transition from the three-story Rose Hotel and is consistent with the existing two-story Barone home and residences on St. John Street. The architectural styles are acceptable styles for Downtown and would be compatible with the eclectic style of homes and commercial buildings on St. John Street, Peters Avenue, and found in the Downtown.
Overall, staff supports the architectural design, massing and detailing of the proposed residences and commercial structures.
Affordable Housing and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) The City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) requires new single-family residential projects of fifteen units or more to provide at least 20% of units at prices affordable to very low-, low-, and/or moderate-income households. The proposed project includes retaining the home and constructing 14 single-family homes, which is below the threshold project size to require on-site affordable units to be provided. The project would be subject to payment of the City’s Affordable Housing in-lieu fee, pursuant to PMC Chapter 17.40.
Grading and Drainage
Site drainage will be directed towards landscaped bio-retention planters located in various areas of the subject site for retention and treatment before draining into the City’s storm drain system. The DSP area is already largely built out, and the Downtown Specific Plan Final EIR determined development facilitated by the DSP would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the DSP area, including through the alteration of a stream or river. The proposed project would be required to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with erosion, stormwater control, and sediment control BMPs as required by the Construction General Permit to manage erosion, siltation, and flooding impacts during construction, in operation. As proposed, the project would not result in substantial alterations to the existing drainage pattern of the DSP area and would not result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding. As conditioned, staff finds the proposed grading and drainage plan to be acceptable and in compliance with applicable stormwater runoff requirements.
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 28 of 32
Relationship to the Arroyo
The DSP includes Goal LD-G.10, to “encourage future land use development that enhances the Arroyo del Valle as a riparian habitat resource.” The project, as proposed, would maintain an appropriate setback from the arroyo, and would be required to ensure there would be no adverse impacts to the waterway or adjacent habitat.
Although, during the DSP update, the desire to improve public access to the arroyo was noted, the applicant has indicated that attempting to do so would raise significant liability concerns and would offer little public benefit given the lack of connectivity to other parts of the waterway (the main trail is located on the other side of the Arroyo). Staff does not believe there would be a public benefit to providing public access to the Arroyo given it cannot be connected to the main trail.
Traffic and Circulation
The Downtown Specific Plan EIR analyzed traffic and circulation impacts with buildout of land uses permitted under the specific plan, including an increase of approximately 370 units across the entire Specific Plan area; these impacts were found to be less than significant from a traffic impact perspective. The plan proposes to add 14 units which falls under the 370 units analyzed in the Specific Plan area. The proposed project is estimated to generate 58 additional trips during the weekdays, 99 additional trips on Saturday, and 25 additional trips on Sunday compared to the existing uses; in this represents a relatively small increase in trips over existing uses at the site, and well within the projections of the EIR, and would not substantially affect the level of service (LOS) of study intersections in the DSP area. Growth associated with the proposed project was captured in the DSP FEIR’s traffic and transportation analysis, and the project would not result in greater impacts to LOS than those identified in the DSP FEIR.
The design of the new project driveway was reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer with respect to safe ingress/egress from the site for residents and commercial visitors, and by the Fire Marshal with respect to emergency vehicle access and determined to provide safe and adequate access.
Furthermore, the proposed project would not modify the use of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities on St. John Street or in the DSP area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
The City’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project and addendum to the DSP FEIR and determined no additional traffic analysis would be required and agrees with the findings in the addendum. Finally, the project has been conditioned to pay the applicable City and Tri-Valley Regional traffic impact fees.
Parking Standards
Single-family homes are required to have two parking spaces per unit (PMC Section
18.88.030), with at least one of the spaces covered in a garage or carport. The applicant is providing two covered spaces per single-family unit, including the existing Barone home, via two-car garages. The driveways for Lots 1-4, and 7-14 have slope percentages of 14 percent, and 15 percent for Lots 5 and 6, which is sufficient to access each lot’s respective two-car garage. The City encourages, and often requires, on-site guest parking for single-family or townhome projects when there isn’t on-street parking provided within the project. During the Work Session, one of the residents of the townhomes on the north side of St. John Street
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 29 of 32
requested that additional parking be provided on-site. As proposed, the project includes 10 guest parking spaces along the new private street for the 14 residences.
In the MU district, a ratio of one parking space per 250 square feet is required for office; and one parking space per 300 square feet is required for other commercial uses. With approximately 3,125 total square feet of commercial space, 12 parking spaces would be required for a ratio of one space per 250 square feet and 10 parking spaces would be required for a ratio of one space per 300 square feet. The project’s 13-stall commercial parking lot would exceed the minimum parking requirements.
Noise and Vibration
External Noise: External noise sources that could affect the site include noise from the railroad to the west. The City’s General Plan requires private yard areas, excluding front yards, not exceed 60 day/night average decibels (dB Ldn) and indoor noise levels not exceed 45 dB Ldn. In addition, if the noise source is a railroad, an exterior noise level up to 70 dB Ldn is allowed and indoor noise levels cannot exceed a maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) of 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other rooms. A noise study was prepared, and can be provided upon request, to ensure the project meets General Plan noise standards. The noise study indicates noise reduction measures would need to be incorporated into the project. This includes installing windows and exterior doors with specific STC ratings. A condition of approval has been added to reflect the requirements.
Staff notes the above measures would address train engine/wheel noise but exclude mitigation for train horns, which may require mitigation that is infeasible and/or unacceptable from a design and neighborhood impact standpoint (e.g., tall sound walls). The General Plan indicates the City Council will evaluate the requirement to achieve the General Plan noise standards in the Downtown on a case-by-case basis. Staff believes a condition of approval requiring disclosure of frequent train whistle noise is sufficient, which is what has been required for other approved and/or constructed projects.
The existing restaurant, with its outdoor events that extending throughout the project site and featured live and/or amplified music, has been a source of noise and activity during evenings, weekends, and special events. The nature of the noise and activity on-site will differ with the two new commercial buildings and outdoor plaza area as the commercial development is more suited from small retail/office and/or smaller eateries, which is expected to generate less intense noise and activity overall. The uses will primarily involve daytime activities with lower-impact sounds, such as casual conversations, light foot traffic, and typical business operations, leading to a more subdued and manageable environment overall.
Downtown Specific Plan Policy LD.P.3 (Right to Do Business) states:
Downtown operations shall not be considered a nuisance under this chapter unless such operations are deemed to be a nuisance under California Civil Code Section 3479. Downtown operations shall comply with all state, federal and local laws and regulations applicable to the operations, including applicable noise and other operational standards contained in the general plan and/or downtown specific plan. New residential projects in the downtown shall include Conditions of Approval requiring disclosure of potential impacts due to proximity to downtown business operations and activities.
A condition of approval has been added disclosing the impacts of business operations.
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 30 of 32
Project Noise and Vibration Impacts on Adjacent Properties: The development of the property will generate added urban noise; however, as mentioned previously, noise levels are not expected to change substantially from those currently experienced in the area because overall activity levels at the site would be modest. Ambient noise levels could decrease for some of the adjacent properties due to the shielding of traffic and train noise by the proposed buildings.
Short-term construction noise would be generated during any new construction on this site.
The City normally allows construction hours from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, with Saturday construction allowed if nearby residents are unlikely to be impacted by construction noise or activities. Since there are existing residences directly adjacent to the proposed project site, staff is recommending Saturday construction not be allowed. Construction equipment would be required to meet Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) noise standards and be equipped with muffling devices.
Green Building
As required by the City’s Green Building Ordinance (PMC Ch. 17.50), the proposed project is required to meet at least a “Green Home.” Some of the proposed green building measures include: employ strategies that use less water and improve energy performance for the building; reduce potable water consumption for irrigation on the subject site as a whole; utilize materials with recycled content; utilize FSC-certified wood in construction materials; and utilize low-VOC (volatile organic compound) emitting flooring, paints, coatings, adhesives, and sealants. The applicant will meet all Green Building Ordinance requirements, which will be verified at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, staff supports the applicant’s green building measures in the project.
Climate Action Plan
The City’s adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2.0 was reviewed by the Bay Area Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and was deemed a “Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy” in accordance with the District’s CEQA guidelines. Implementation of the CAP will occur over several years. The CAP consists of amendments to regulations and policies related to Land Use and Transportation, Energy, Solid Waste, and Water and Wastewater, which result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with the targets set by AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
Staff completed an analysis of how the proposed project is consistent with or implements the applicable measures outlined in the City of Pleasanton’s CAP. As a mixed-use project located within the vicinity of a commuter bus line and the ACE train, the proposed project is consistent with Land Use Goal 1 of the CAP: to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through infill and higher density development. In addition, several Strategies and Supporting Actions related to water and energy conservation from the CAP are implemented in the proposed project, including that new units would be all-electric and not contain any new gas facilities, or are required as conditions of approval.
School Impacts
As a mixed-use development which includes 14 new single-family homes, the project can be expected to generate a demand on school facilities. Pursuant to State law, payment of school impact fees set by the state legislature is deemed adequate mitigation for school-related
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 31 of 32
impacts associated with new student generation. Construction will not be allowed to start until Pleasanton Unified School District has advised that all required fees have been paid.
Tree Removal and Landscaping
A tree report has been prepared that specifies the species, size, health, and value of the existing trees on the site that exceed 6 inches in diameter. A total of 51 existing trees were identified, including 34 heritage-sized trees. The project proposes to remove a total of 39 existing trees, including the 34 heritage-size trees. The trees require removal due to direct or significant encroachment by the proposed project and/or related site modifications.
Landscape plans have been provided for the proposed project showing new planted areas around the private street and commercial lot. The landscape plans provide a variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcover on the project site. The new trees proposed for the project are a combination of 24-inch and 60-inch box sized trees. Final planting plan details would be determined at the time of building permit review and be finalized in consultation with the City’s Landscape Architect to ensure an attractive landscape would also meet the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO). The City’s Landscape Architect has included conditions of approval to mitigate the off set for tree removal versus the new trees to be planted.
Staff finds the proposed landscape plan is attractive and contains sufficient landscape area throughout the project site. Staff believes once finalized with the City’s Landscape Architect, the density and species of the new trees would be appropriate.
Planned Unit Development Considerations
PMC Section 18.68.110 sets forth the purposes of the PUD District and considerations to be addressed in reviewing a PUD development plan. These purposes and considerations are set forth in the draft Resolution included as Exhibit A and includes whether the plan is in conformance with the City General Plan, in the best interest of public health, safety, and general welfare, and whether the plan would be compatible with developed properties in the vicinity. As described in Exhibit A and based on the information and analysis provided in this Agenda Report, staff recommends the Commission make the required findings to recommend approval of the project to the City Council.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of this meeting was sent to property owners and tenants/occupants within 1,000-feet of the site as shown in Exhibit D, and project identification signage has been posted on-site by the applicant. The applicant has provided letters of support from the Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce, Pleasanton Downtown Association, and Shelley Despotakis. Staff also received a letter from Linda Behers, Board member of the St. John Court Homeowners’ Association, regarding concerns related to traffic, parking, construction, and existing trees. The letters of support and Linda Behers letter are included as Exhibit E. Public comments received after publication of this report will be forwarded to the Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164, provide that an addendum may be prepared to a previously approved EIR when minor changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The previous DSP FEIR (State Clearinghouse Number #2001032014) remains
P21-1173, PUD-146 and Tract 8631: 475 & 493 St. John Street Planning Commission 32 of 32
relevant in light of proposed changes for the mixed-use project. The changes proposed in this action do not involve new significant environmental effects or increase the severity of previously identified impacts (Section 15162.) The FEIR as amended by the addendum is, therefore, determined to be adequate to serve as the CEQA compliance document for the project. A copy of the addendum is attached for review and consideration as Exhibit C.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
Staff worked closely with the applicant on the proposed development over the years and appreciates the applicant’s cooperation in revising the proposal to address comments from the Planning Commission Work Session and staff concerning site layout, commercial square footage, parking, and other elements of the project. The proposed development is well-designed, would preserve an existing home on-site, provide additional commercial square footage with a public plaza and parking lot, and would be compatible with other residential and commercial uses in the Downtown. Staff, therefore, believes the rezoning, certificate of appropriateness, PUD development plan, and Vesting Tentative Map merit a favorable recommendation to the City Council from the Planning Commission, subject to the conditions in Exhibit A.
Primary Author: Natalie Amos, Associate Planner 925-931-5613 or [email protected]
Reviewed/Approved By:
Melinda Denis, Planning and Permit Center Manager/Deputy Director of Community Development Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development
Kim Cilley, Assistant City Attorney
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3 October 23, 2024
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, October 23, 2024
CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, AND ROLL CALL
Chair Gaidos called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. from the City Council Chambers located at 200 Old Bernal Avenue.
Commissioner Jain led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commissioners Present: Commissioners Anurag Jain, Vivek Mohan, Ken Morgan, Stephanie Wedge, and Chair Matt Gaidos
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Brandon Pace
AGENDA AMENDMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Actions of the Zoning Administrator
Recommendation: Receive report.
2. Approve the meeting minutes of September 11, 2024
Recommendation: Approve the meeting minutes.
MOTION: It was m/s by Jain/Mohan to approve the items on the Consent Calendar, as recommended.
Motion passed by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Jain, Mohan, Morgan, Wedge, and Chair Gaidos Noes: None
Absent: Commissioner Pace
Abstain: None
MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
3. Public comment regarding items not listed on the agenda.
Chair Gaidos opened the public comment. There being no speakers, Chair Gaidos closed the public comment.
ATTACHMENT 5
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 October 23, 2024
PUBLIC HEARING AND OTHER MATTERS
P21-1173, PUD-146 and TRACT 8631/Robson Homes – Consideration of recommendations to the City Council for: (1) the adoption of an addendum to the Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) approval of applications for: (a) rezoning (P21-1173) two parcels totaling approximately 2.3-acres in area from C-C (Central-Commercial) to PUD-MU (Planned Unit Development-Mixed-Use) District; (b) a certificate of appropriateness to demolish structures; (c) PUD-MU development plan (PUD-146) approval to: (1) retain the two-story single-family home and construct an approximately 1,360-square-foot two-story addition to the north side of the home; (2) demolish the detached accessory dwelling unit, Barone’s restaurant, and all other structures and site modifications; and (3) construct; i) an approximately 676-square-foot single-story detached accessory dwelling unit; ii) 14 detached single-family homes, iii) two commercial buildings totaling approximately 3,125 square feet in area with a public courtyard, new private streets, and related site improvements; and (4) a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Tract 8631) to subdivide the 2.3 acres into 15 single-family lots, one commercial lot, and three private common space parcels.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. PC-2024-17 recommending the City Council: (1) adopt an addendum to the downtown specific plan final environmental impact report (FEIR); (2) approve applications for: (a) rezoning two parcels totaling approximately 2.3-acres in area from Central- Commercial (C-C) to Planned Unit Development-Mixed-Use (PUD-MU) district; (b) a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish structures; (c) PUD-MU development plan to: (i) retain the two-story single-family home and construct a two-story addition to the north side of the home; (ii) demolish all remaining on-site structures and site modifications; (iii) construct 14 detached single-family homes, two commercial buildings with a public plaza and parking lot, new private street, and related side improvements; and (d) a vesting tentative tract map to subdivide the 2.3 acres into 15 single-family lots, one commercial lot, and three private common parcels for the proposed project at 475 and 493 St. John street filed under case Nos. P21-1173, PUD-146, and Tract 8631
Planning and Permit Center Manager Melinda Denis presented the item.
Chair Gaidos opened the public comment. Public comments were received by: Richard Yee (applicant), Linda Behers, Bill Wheeler, James Cooper, and Melissa Morgan.
Chair Gaidos closed the public comment.
Chair Gaidos re-opened the public comment. Public comments were received by: Richard Yee (applicant).
Chair Gaidos closed the public comment.
MOTION: It was m/s by Jain/Mohan to adopt Resolution No. PC-2024-17 recommending City Council action as recommended by staff and reflected in the Agenda Report and Powerpoint Presentation by staff, with additional recommendations that (1) The City Council review the proposed PUD-MU permitted and conditionally permitted uses and list specific allowable uses for the commercial property; and (2) The Developer consider adding a second story or roof deck to the commercial buildings if feasible and 3) City Council consider addition of a condition of approval for a maintenance agreement for the on-site common areas. to City Council. Motion passed by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Jain, Morgan, Pace, Wedge, and Chair Gaidos Noes: None
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 October 23, 2024
Absent: Commissioner Pace
Abstain: None
Chair Gaidos called a recess at 9:06 p.m.
Chair Gaidos reconvened the meeting at 9:19 p.m.
4. P24-0585, City of Pleasanton, Work Session to review and discuss draft amendments to the Objective Design Standards for Housing sites and Pleasanton Municipal Code – Work session to review and discuss amendments to the Objective Design Standards for Housing Sites and Chapter
18.84 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code.
Recommendation: Receive presentation, review and discuss draft amendments to the Objective Design Standards for Housing sites and Pleasanton Municipal Code.
Senior Planner Shweta Bonn and consultant Andrew Faulkner presented the item.
Chair Gaidos opened the public comment. There being no speakers, Chair Gaidos closed the public comment.
The Planning Commission received the presentation and provided feedback to staff.
MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S REVIEW/ACTION/INFORMATION
5. Reports from Meetings Attended (e.g., Committee, Task Force, etc.)
None.
6. Actions of the City Council
Director Ellen Clark provided a brief overview of the items listed in the report.
7. Future Planning Calendar
Planning and Permit Center Manager Denis provided a brief overview of the items listed in the report.
MATTERS INITIATED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Gaidos adjourned the meeting at 10:27 p.m.
__________________________________
Paul Eichenholtz, Recording Secretary
j .... •
- -- - ·•
DOWNTOWN
ASSOCIATION
August 25, 2020
Mayor Brown and City Council Members,
RECEIVED
SEP ?.1 2024
CITY OF PU:ASANTON
PLANNING DiVISION
The Pleasanton Downtown Association Board of Directors unanimously supports the Robson Homes proposed project for 475 and 493 St. John Street. The full project presentation was made to both our Board of Directors and Downtown Vitality Committee and this project was met with tremendous enthusiasm.
The PDA believes this project aligns with the overall goals of Downtown by enhancing and activating a major side street while also providing ample on-site parking. We are very excited about the prospect of the new ground floor retail component and know this will be an excellent addition to the wonderful business mix that already exists Downtown. Having a "Blacksmith Square" -esque project in Downtown Pleasanton has long been desired by our community, which was noted in the 2019 Downtown Specific Plan process. The thoughtful design of these plans would provide a beautiful transition from Main Street, past the Rose Hotel and down St. John Street which only increases the desired walkability of this side street location.
We strongly encourage the City Council to show their support for the future of Downtown and begin to move this exciting project forward. Thank you for
your time & thoughtful consideration of this project.
Best regards,
Laura Brooks
Interim Executive Director
Pleasanton Downtown Association
ATTACHMENT 6
10-23-2024
From:
To: Natalie Amos
Subject: P21-1173, PUD-146, Tract 8631
Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 9:46:26 PM
*** [EXTERNAL] This message comes from an external organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. ***
Dear Natalie,
I hope you are doing well. I am writing about the proposed development on the Barone's property, as I was unable to attend this evening's public hearing.
I am a property owner in the Saint John community behind the proposed development, and while I am mostly ambivalent to/positive about the development, I wish to express my concerns about the following two points after reading the agenda packet:
1. With regards to:
Tree Removal and Landscaping: A tree report has been prepared that specifies the species, size, health, and value of the
existing trees on the site that exceed 6 inches in diameter. A total of 51 existing trees were
identified, including 34 heritage-sized trees. The project proposes to remove a total of 39 existing trees,
including the 34 heritage-size trees. The trees require removal due to direct or significant encroachment by
the proposed project and/or related site modifications.
This section is absolutely unacceptable. While I understand that the removal of some of the heritage trees is inevitable during a project of this size (especially trees such as Redwoods), the City consistently disappoints me with its lack of consistency regarding the preservation of our heritage trees. In particular, Valley Oak trees are native to the Tri-Valley area, are drought tolerant, provide much-needed shade, and the value that they provide the community, and the environment, cannot be overstated. Pleasanton wishes to be a city of so-called planned progress, but lacks the foresight to appreciate that a tree that is older than 100 years cannot be replaced by a newly planted 'attractive' landscaping alternative. You are enabling shade poverty, and robbing our community of its character one tree at a time. In particular, the oak tree on the western side of the property, adjacent to the St. John Townhomes is worth preserving.
Trees such as these are irreplaceable, and I look to towns like Danville and Livermore as examples of valuing the benefits that these trees bring. Perhaps a community gathering space can be created under its shade?
2. I am concerned about the traffic impact of this will have on St. John Street. My sons both bike to school, and I foresee cars using our cul-de-sac as an opportunity to turn their cars around. The corner/curve in the road leading to Peters Avenue is already dangerous, as there is no pedestrian crosswalk where it intersects with St. John. In anticipating more foot traffic to the commercial space and residential units, and its associated vehicular traffic, I expect the City to ensure the safety of all students using this road and installing a pedestrian crosswalk.
Finally, less a concern than a question: With the vehicular traffic, was increased delivery trucks to the homes accounted for in the trip estimates?
Thank you so much for your time, I appreciate it!
Nadine Moore
© Latitude Geographics Group Ltd.
2,159.6
THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION
NAD_1983_2011_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Ft_US Feet2,159.6
Notes
Notes
Legend
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
1,079.820
1: 12,958
Fire Station
School
Park
Parcels
475 and 493 St. John Street
ATTACHMENT 7
© Latitude Geographics Group Ltd.
2,112.4
THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION
NAD_1983_2011_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Ft_US Feet2,112.4
Notes
Notes
Legend
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
1,056.220
1: 12,675
Map Print Title
Fire Station
School
Park
Parcels
493 ST. JOHNS STREET
12/6/2024
1 Robson Homes/Barone’s
475 & 493 St. John Street
Rezoning (P21-1173), Development Plan (PUD-
146), and Tract 8631
City Council
December 17, 2024
Requested Actions
Proposed Entitlements and Approvals:
1. Adoption of an CEQA Addendum to the DSP Final EIR
2. Rezoning and PUD Development Plan
3. Vesting Tentative Map
1 2
12/6/2024
2 Site Description
Barone Residence
3 4
12/6/2024
3 Barone’s Restaurant
Site Plan/Project Description
5 6
12/6/2024
4 Barone House – Residential Addition
Existing Proposed
New Detached Residential
7 8
12/6/2024
5 Commercial Plaza
New Private Street
Rose Hotel
Commercial – St. John Street
9 10
12/6/2024
6 Commercial – St. John Street
New Homes (Lots 1-3) New Home (Lot 4)
St. John Street Townhome Barone Home Rose HotelNew Com. Bldgs & Plaza Focused Street View - West
New Home (Lot 4)
New Private
Street
11 12
12/6/2024
7 Focused Street View - East
New Homes
Lot 3 Lot 2 Lot 1 Rose Hotel
New Private
Street
Planning Commission Hearing
Public comments:
• Maintain the existing amount of commercial square-footage • Active uses
• Existing traffic and parking on St. John Street
• Retain more trees
Planning Commission discussion:
• Amount of commercial square-footage
• One larger building in lieu of two smaller buildings
• Increasing commercial building height for rooftop use • Type of commercial uses
13 14
12/6/2024
8 Planning Commission – Cont’d
Voted 4-0 to Recommend City Council Adopt the addendum to the DSP FEIR; Approve the PUD rezoning and development plan; and Approve Vesting Tentative Map, subject to the draft conditions of approval Planning Commission requested City Council consider:
1. Proposed PUD-MU permitted and conditionally permitted uses and list specific allowable uses;
2. Adding a second story or roof deck to the commercial buildings, if feasible; and
3. Adding a condition of approval for a maintenance agreement for the on-site common areas.
Analysis
1. General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
2. Zoning/Land Use and Development Standards
3. Site Plan
4. Architecture
15 16
12/6/2024
9 1. General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan
• GP LU: Retail/Highway/Service Commercial Business and Professional Offices; permits mixed-use development. Public Health and Safety with Wildland Overlay; no development allowed.
• DSP LU: Downtown Commercial
LD-P .15: 475/493 St. John is designated Downtown Commercial; The property may redevelop to a mixed-use project, which includes residential with approval of a PUD application, which will rezone the property and evaluate the appropriate density and design (a residential only project is not desirable). The existing residence is required to remain.
• Project supports numerous GP and DSP Goals, Programs, and Policies
2. Zoning/Land Use Development Standards
• Existing Residential – R-1-10,000 Zoning District
• New Residential – R-1-6,500 Zoning District
• Commercial – MU-D District, with specific permitted uses, including:
• Personal services
• Restaurants and catering establishments
• Retail
• Microbreweries
• Wineries
• Bars and brew pubs
• Office, professional services, adult businesses, examples of uses not permitted
17 18
12/6/2024
10 3. Site Plan
• Adequate transition from commercial to residential
• New homes behind commercial structures and existing home • No net loss of commercial structure square-footage
• Single primary access point from St. John Street
• Adequate internal vehicle and pedestrian circulation
• Meets the PMC parking standards for residential and permitted commercial uses
• No development within the designated open space area along Arroyo
4. Architecture
19 20
12/6/2024
11 Conclusion and Recommendations
1. Adopt a resolution adopting the addendum to the Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, finding the document satisfies the requirements of CEQA
2. Introduce and Ordinance making the PUD findings and approving a PUD development plan approving the applications for:
• PUD rezoning of two parcels (P21-1173), and
• PUD development plan (PUD-146) approval to:
o Retain the two-story home and construct an addition
o Demolish all other structures and site modifications, and o Construct 14 detached single-family homes, two commercial buildings with a public plaza and parking lot, new private street, and related site modifications subject to the Draft Conditions of Approval
3. Adopt a resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Map (Tract 8631) End
21 22