Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-18 City Council Agenda PacketCity Council 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE. Tuesday, May 18, 2021 Special Meeting 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available on the City’s website 11 days prior to the meeting. ***BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who wish to participate by computer or phone can find the instructions at the end of this agenda. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest calling in or connecting online 15 minutes before the item you wish to speak on. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. Public comment may be addressed to the full City Council via email at City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Study Session 5:00-6:00 PM 1.955 Alma St [21PLN-00013]: Request for Prescreening of a Proposal to Rezone the Subject Site From RT -35 to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) and Redevelop the Site With a new 4-Story Mixed- use Development That Includes 36 Residential Studios, 6,348 Square Feet of Office Space, and a Below Grade Parking Facility. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project; any Subsequent Formal Presentation Public Comment 2 May 18, 2021 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE. Application Would be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: RT-35 (Residential Transition District) South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) II Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) 6:00-7:00 PM 2.2239 Wellesley (21PLN-00045): Request by Cato Investments, LLC for Prescreening of Their Proposal to Rezone the Properties at 2239 and 2241 Wellesley from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) and to Redevelop the Site With a 24-Unit Multi-family Development. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project; any Subsequent Formal Application Would be Subject to California Environmental Review Act (CEQA) Review Oral Communications 7:10-7:25 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Consent Calendar 7:25-7:30 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3.Adoption of Ordinances Responding to State Housing Bills Regarding Density Bonus and Affordable Housing. Environmental Assessment: Exempt Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:30-8:45 PM 4.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 181 Addison Avenue [20PLN-00300] Request for Review of a Preliminary Parcel Map With Exception and Variance to Subdivide one Existing lot Into two Parcels With Less Than the Minimum 60 Foot Frontage. Environmental Assessment: Consistent With Previously Adopted Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City's Comprehensive Plan. Zoning District: R-2 (Two Family Residential) Within the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) II Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) 8:45-10:10 PM Direction to Staff Regarding 2023-31 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Appeal Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. Presentation Public Comment Presentation Public Comment 5. Presentation Q&A Memo Public Comment 3 May 18, 2021 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION ON THE CITY’S WEBSITE. Public Comment Instructions Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org. 2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. A.You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. B.You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. C.When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. D.When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. E.A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3.Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B-E above. 4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 City of Palo Alto (ID # 12020) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/18/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 955 Alma Street: PHZ Prescreening for 36 Studio Units + Office Title: 955 Alma St [21PLN -00013]: Request for Prescreening of a Proposal to Rezone the Subject Site From RT-35 to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) and Redevelop the Si te with a New 4-Story Mixed-Use Development that Includes 36 Residential Studios, 6,348 sf of Office Space, and a Below Grade Parking Facility. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project; any Subsequent Formal Application Would be Subject to CEQA Review. Zoni ng District: RT-35 (Residential Transition District) SOFA 2 CAP From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council conduct a prescreening review of and provide informal comments regarding the applicant’s request for a rezoning and text amendment for the proposed Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) project located on an RT-35 zoned property.1 Comments provided during the prescreening process are not binding on the City or the applicant. Executive Summary: The prescreening application responds to the City Council’s expressed interest in learning from home builders what it takes to create more housing opportunities in Palo Alto. Council adopted the Planned Community (PC) zoning process found in PAMC 18.380 to become the PHZ. A PHZ application must meet two initial qualifying criteria established by the City Council: 1) provide 20% of the total units as income-restricted inclusionary housing, and 2) provide more housing units than required for any net new jobs. 1 Referred to in this report as "Planned Home Zone" to emphasize the focus on housing as the benefit to the community. Still, PAMC Section 18.38, which outlines the requirement and process for Planned Community (PC) Zoning, remains the underlying code supporting this policy. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The conceptual project replaces an existing ~8,000 square foot office building with a new mixed-use development with 36 housing units (studios) and 6,360 square feet of office space. There would be seven income-restricted units meeting the 20 percent inclusionary requirement. The project site is located in the South of Forest Area (SOFA II) which has different Planned Community requirements than the rest of the city. Accordingly, in addition to seeking an application to rezone the property to PHZ, the applicant would also need to request an amendment to SOFA II Coordinated Area Plan. The prescreening request is a study session discussion only, and no formal action will be taken by the City Council. Background: In accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.79.030(A), a prescreening review is required for legislative changes, including rezoning, before the submittal of a formal application. Prescreening applications are intended to solicit early feedback on proposed projects and, like all study sessions, cannot result in any formal action. Because this proposal may return to the City Council as a quasi-judicial application, Councilmembers should refrain from forming firm opinions supporting or opposing the project. Project-related information is available online and as well as conceptual project plans at : https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/955-Alma- Street-21PLN-00013 and https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp- development-services/new-development-projects/955-alma-street.pdf, respectively. City Council PHZ Program Refinements On April 12, 2021, the City Council discussed and updated parameters it would consider for future PHZ applications. While the multi-part motion included a number of future considerations, more immediately, the Council’s motion directed PHZ applications meet the following criteria: • Clarify that the PHZ was intended to only apply to housing incentive program (HIP) areas, other commercial districts, and zone districts allowing higher-density housing, excluding areas east of 101; • Provide parameters for what is meant by “moderate adjustments to base zoning for PHZ projects”; • Clarify that the PHZ must be predominantly housing and only a minority component may be for office use; • The PHZ is prohibited in R-1, R-2, and RE zoning districts, except for projects that have already been prescreened; and City of Palo Alto Page 3 • Allow the PHZ in light industrial areas as long as it is not an incompatible use. The subject PHZ application, which was filed prior to Council direction, is for a property not located in a HIP (Housing Incentive Program) area. The property is located in a mixed-use zoning district that permits higher density housing in buildings up to a height of 35 feet (RT-35 zoning). The base district does not include any density restrictions (units/acre) and the floor area ratio (FAR) is 1.5:1 for mixed-use projects and up to 2.0:1 FAR for 100% affordable housing projects. The subject application includes a conceptual project with a 2.68 FAR and height up to 50 feet, which exceeds the 35-foot limit for RT-35 zoning in SOFA II. Since the Council’s direction in April, there has not been sufficient time for staff to return with parameters that constitute moderate adjustments to base zoning for PHZ projects. It is anticipated the Council will consider each PHZ project on a case by case basis until such criteria are established. As to the requirement for projects to be predominantly housing, the conceptual project is 28,186 square feet with residential use occupying more than 75% of the floor area. The other two criteria in the Council's motion do not apply to the conceptual project. Project Description The project is located at 955 Alma in the RT-35 zone across from the Caltrain right of way. The site currently has a single-story, 8,088 sf office building. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site by demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a mixed-use building consisting of 36 new residential studio units and 6,360 sf of office space. This represents a 21% reduction in office space; eliminating 1,728 square feet. Twenty percent of the housing units (seven total) are proposed to be affordable. These units meet the City’s inclusionary housing requirement for PHZ development under Option 2,2 which allows a home builder to propose a mix of inclusionary units that incentiv ize the production of lower-income units. This conceptual project meets the 20% inclusionary requirement with three units being very low-income (50% AMI), one moderate-income unit (120% AMI), and three workforce housing units (140% AMI). The conceptual project has been designed to a height of 50 feet with a FAR of 2.68. A total of 61 parking spaces are required for the project; the applicant is proposing 40 spaces at grade and within a subterranean garage with mechanical lift parking. During a preliminary review of the project, staff learned that four parking spaces would be adjacent to Alma Street. These spaces are problematic potentially necessitating a redesign or further parking reduction request. 2 On September 21, 2020, the City Council authorized 4 options by which PHZs can meet the inclusionary housing requirements. City Council Planned Home Zoning (PC Zoning) Affordability Requirements Staff Report 9/21/2020: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=43675.41&BlobID=78363 City of Palo Alto Page 4 In addition to the PHZ rezoning process, the applicant would also need to request an amendment to the SOFA II CAP, which has more restrictive policies on PC (and therefore PHZ) applications that limit building height to 35 feet. Discussion This section describes some of the key areas of interest and areas where the proposed project differs from the City’s typical development standards. Height & FAR The conceptual project includes a building with a height of 50 feet, which would be taller than most buildings in the area. Several adjacent buildings are one story in height, but their sites are zoned for taller building heights of 35 and 50 feet (see map below). Currently, the tall est building on the same block is the Planned Community at 909 Alma, which is three stories tall. The next tallest building in the vicinity is 801 Alma, which is four st ories tall. The closest R-1 neighborhood and uses are located 160 feet away, across Addison Avenue. The Caltrain right of way is across Alma Street. The map below shows the location of the project site relative to the SOFA 2 boundary and adjacent zoning (SOFA II boundary in yellow). SOFA II creates regulatory limitations that would pre vent the project from advancing as proposed. First, the SOFA II zoning regulations differ from the Municipal Code zoning City of Palo Alto Page 5 regulations in terms of proposed PC’s. Within the SOFA II, PC’s are allowed to be established for the following uses:3 (1) Residential projects in which all units are affordable to income levels up to 120% of the Santa Clara County Median Income; (2) Exclusively rental residential projects with a maximum average unit size of 1250 sf. (3) Social service uses (excluding social service offices); (4) Retail or social service offices incidental to other uses on the site. Secondly, the proposed FAR would not comply with the SOFA II requirements. Specifically, SOFA II sets a FAR limit of 1.15 for PC’s on RT-35 zoned sites, while the applicant proposes a FAR of 2.68. In contrast, the Municipal Code does not have FAR limitations for PCs; rather, there are height limits that indirectly limit FAR. For context, the base RT-35 zone is allowed a FAR of 1.15 for mixed-used projects. The denser RT-50 zone has a FAR limit of 1.3 for mixed-used projects. A PHZ within the RT-50 zone with exclusively rental housing or a PHZ with a social service use proposed has a maximum FAR of 2.0. Both of the RT zones within SOFA II have considerable restrictions and re quirements for PCs when compared to Municipal Code PC regulation. For these reasons, the applicant anticipates filing a text amendment to modify SOFA II development standards to match Municipal Code Chapter 18.38 (Planned Communities); such an amendment would resolve the regulatory conflict. This would resolve FAR and use limitations for the PCs in SOFA II and the project can maintain the contemplated density. Housing Unit Size & Open Space The project's housing units would be located on the upper floo rs of the development and have exterior access rather than enclosed interior corridors. The unit sizes range from 329 sf to 512 square feet, with an average size of 342 square feet. Each studio unit is proposed to have a private balcony or terrace area that ranges in size from 50 sf to 108 square feet. The required open space is 80 square feet of private open space per unit. The project includes a 3,561 square foot open rooftop terrace for gathering and open space (Sheet A10). Additionally, there is a 1,201 square foot second-floor open plaza area (Sheet A7). The applicant has indicated that the upper roof deck would be accessible to both residents and office employees. The total average combined common and private open space per dwelling unit would be 207 sf. By comparison, the Title 18 open space requirement for mixed-use and multifamily 3 SOFA II CAP 5.090 RT Districts- Regulations for New Planned Community (PC) Districts, page 70 City of Palo Alto Page 6 developments is 150 sf of combined private and common open space per dwelling unit. However, as noted, some of this open space would be shared by the office use. Vehicle and Bicycle Parking The applicant proposes to provide 40 vehicle parking spaces, via eight ground -level spaces, 32 subterranean garage spaces, and one loading space.4 The office use would have 15 dedicated parking spaces and the residential units would have the remaining 25 spaces. The project plans show a total of six standard parking spaces (non-mechanical lift & not accessible), and two accessible parking spaces.5 PAMC 18.52.020(b)(4)(G) requires all non-residential uses to have at least two standard spaces, or 10% of the total parking spaces (whichever is greater) to be standard spaces. In this case, the requirement would be 10% standard spaces (four spaces total). The applicant plans to request a parking reduction of 30%. When analyzing the proposed parking, however, staff estimate that a 41% adjustment is necessary. This estimate accounts for the project not being able to replace the on-site parking along the Alma Street frontage (four parking spaces total). During the review of the project, staff found these parking spaces are legal non-conforming. These existing parking spaces hang over the public sidewalk, present blind spots between vehicles and pedestrians, and require vehicles to back up onto Alma Street against oncoming traffic. For these reasons, the replacement of the existing Alma Street parking configuration would not be supported, thus increasing the number of spaces subject to a parking adjustment request. The applicant is aware of the issues with the current proposal. The applicant acknowledges that parking design changes are needed for a formal entitlement application. The applicant proposes both housing units and jobs near transit (Downtown Caltrain station) and the project would benefit from the many amenities within walking and biki ng distance. Through a transportation demand management program, parking demand can be reduced and alternative modes of transportation promoted. The Council will want to consider the project’s proximity to rail and access to alternative modes of transportation when informally commenting on the anticipated parking reduction needed to support the project. Bicycle Parking The applicant proposes to provide eight short-term bicycle parking spaces, while only three short-term bicycle parking spaces are required for the proposed office use. The applicant would also be required to provide one long-term bicycle parking for each housing unit. This information is not provided on the plans, but it is staff’s understanding that the applicant 4 Loading spaces are not required per code for office uses under 10,000 sf or multifamily residential 5 PAMC 18.52 provides that all required accessible parking spaces to be counted twice toward the minimum parking requirements in accordance with state law. City of Palo Alto Page 7 intends to comply with this requirement. Policy Implications: The proposal appears to meet the two qualifying criteria established by the City Council for PHZ’s. The project would provide 20% (seven units) of the 36 units as income -restricted affordable housing, and provide more housing units than jobs produced by the project, specifically, the number of jobs associated with office space on site would be reduced from 28 jobs to 22 jobs, according to the Council approved formula for determining PHZ jobs/housing compliance. Office space would be reduced by approximately 22% and all housing units proposed would be a net increase. In these ways, the project would contribute to the City’s housing production, office reduction, and greenhouse gas emmission goals. The project, however, would need adjustments to meet local development standards. This project's location within the SOFA II adds to the complexity of the project as detailed in this report. SOFA II has zoning regulations that have not been changed since the Council approved the SOFA II plan. The plan regulations address PC developments and therefore have several limitations for PHZ development. The project location in the SOFA II, in general, provides opportunities for multifamily homes within close proximity to jobs, services, a nd public transit. A discussion from the City Council on its receptiveness to the anticipated SOFA II amendments is appropriate. Stakeholder Engagement: This item was published in the Daily Post on May 7, 2021, which is 11 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 3, 2021, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. As of writing this report, no public comments related to this project have been received by the City. Environmental Review: The prescreening application involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequent projects will require project-specific environmental analysis. Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment C: Applicant Project Description (PDF) Attachment D: SOFA 2 Regulations (PDF) Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) 120-28-087 120-28-088 120-28-079 120-28-072 120-30-024 120-30-026 120-30-027 120-30-028 120-30-031 120-30-032 120-30-047 120-28-046 120-28-092 120-28-093 120-28-094 120-28-096 120-28-049 120-30-030 120-28-039 120-32-031 120-32-031 120-32-028120-32-02 8 120-32-027 12 0 - 3 2 - 0 2 7 Bldg 3 Bldg 4 Penin s u l a C r e a m e r y Heinichens_Garage Bldg 5 145.0'112.5'145.0'112.5' 50 . 0 ' 124.8 ' 50 . 0 ' 124.8 ' 50 . 0 ' 100.2 ' 50 . 0 ' 100.2 ' 36 . 3 ' 100.2 ' 3 6 . 3 ' 100.2 ' 76.2' 100.2 ' 76 . 2 ' 100.2' 50 . 0 ' 225.0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 225.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 112.5 ' 50 . 0 ' 112.5 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 112.5 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 112.5 ' 11 2 . 5 ' 112.5 ' 11 2 . 5 ' 112.5 ' 45.0'112.5' 4 5 . 0 ' 112.5'45.0' 112.5 ' 45 . 0 ' 112.5'45.0' 112.5 ' 45 . 0 ' 112.5 ' 4 5 . 0 ' 112.5 ' 4 5 . 0 ' 112.5 ' 75 . 0 ' 50.0' 75 . 0 ' 50.0' 75 . 0 ' 48.0' 7 5 . 0 ' 48.0' 37.5'112.5'37.5'112.5' 10 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 18.8' 53 5 . 5 ' 938.0' 57 8 . 2 ' 1019.5' 5 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 33 . 3 ' 105.0 ' 33 . 3 ' 105.0 ' 33 . 3 ' 105.0 ' 3 3 . 3 ' 105.0 ' 33 . 3 ' 105.0 ' 33 . 3 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 10 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 10 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 25 0 . 0 ' 1 3 7 . 5 ' 112.5 ' 1 3 7 . 5 ' 112.5 ' 75 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 5 2 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 52 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 73 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 73 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 10 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 10 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 10 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 10 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 20 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 2 0 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 11 2 . 5 ' 124.8 ' 1 1 2 . 5 ' 124.8 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 50.0' 1 2 1 . 2 ' 50.0' 1 2 1 . 2 ' 50.0' 1 2 1 . 2 ' 50.0' 1 2 1 . 2 ' 50.0' 1 2 1 . 2 ' 50.0' 1 2 1 . 2 ' 50.0' 1 2 1 . 2 ' 50.0' 1 2 1 . 2 ' 100.0'112.5'100.0'112.5'100.0' 112.5 ' 10 0 . 0 ' 112.5'95.0'112.5'95.0'112.5'40 0 . 0 ' 105.0 ' 40 0 . 0 ' 105.0' 182.3' 200.0' 14. 3 ' 72.6' 1 3 7 . 4 ' 84.5' 112.3' 3 9 . 0 ' 48. 0 ' 43. 5 ' 112.3' 8 2 . 2 ' 224.6' 21 2 . 7 ' 72 . 0 ' 105.0 '934- 9 4 4 933-937 1019 1027 A B 1035 1044 1061 1 0 7 1 0 5 1 0 3 1045 1028 1020 1 6 0 1001 1005 1009 1015 1004 930 975 945 929 931 948 1 8 1 940 960 1 4 5 900 955 999 875 853 925 855 901- 9 0 7 909 8 7 9 8 10381036 917 921 925 849 1 6 5 841 926 1 9 0 942 2 0 3 929 918800 949 943941 827 904 1 0 0 965 140 945 1012 901 998 1 0 1 1 0 5 HI G H S T R E E T E M E R S O N S T R E E T HIGH STRE E T HI G H S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T CHAN N I N G A V E N U E ADDI S O N A V E N U E ENCINA A V E N U E L A N E 8 W E S T L A N E A W E S T L A N E B W E S T PC- 4389 RT-50 RT-35 RT- 50 PC-4779 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Historic Site abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts Project Site Railroad 0'95' 955 Alma St CIT Y O F PALO A L T O I NC O R P O R A T E D C ALI FO R N I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto sgutier, 2021-02-10 13:49:02 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\sgutier.mdb) Attachment B Zoning Comparison Table 955 Alma Street 21PLN-00013 Parcel Data Zoning & Comp LU Parcel Dimensions Parcel Area APN RT-35 & SOFA 2 CAP 99.97’ x 105.08’ 10,504 sf (0.24 acre) 120-28-096 Zoning Information Required Setbacks RT-35 (Exclusively Residential) RT-35 (Mixed Use) SOFA 2 PHZ Zoning Proposed PHZ Front 15' 15’, but may be reduced to zero by the Director or Council, following ARB review, if consistent with the established building pattern in the area None Required 0 to 12’ Side 15’ to building wall Not applicable (10’ Required adjacent to R-1) 0’ Rear 10’ to parking podium; 10’ to building wall 5’ to parking podium (alley) None required Adjacent to Commercial, (10’ Required adjacent to residential uses) 0’ at Lane A West (alley) Street Side 15’ 5’ Not applicable Height 35’ 35’ No maximum indicated 50’ to rooftop 54’ 3” to roof terrace screen, with an elevator tower element at 58’ Daylight Plane (mixed- use) None for portions of the building with residential uses on the floor; 15’ height at the lot line increasing at 45 degrees for upper floors None required None required None proposed Floor Area Ratio Maximum 1.15:1 for exclusively residential projects; 1.30:1 for exclusively rental residential and one of the following: • 100% affordable housing • Exclusively Social Service Uses • All other projects, when using floor area bonuses or transferable development rights (see SOFA 2 Sections 5.060, 5.070, and 5.080) 1.15:1 for mixed-use 1.5:1 for mixed use PC Districts (71,798 sf) in RT-35 zone ~2.68:1 (28,186 sf) Lot Coverage Maximum None required Residential Density No Maximum; Maximum size of average dwelling unit 1,250 None required 8.64 DU on 0.24 acres (average 358sf unit size) Private Open Space Residential and Mixed-Use development shall provide useable private open space in a yard, patio, porch, deck, balcony, French balcony at least two feet in depth, or loggia for each dwelling unit. The type and design of the useable private open space shall be appropriate to the architectural character of the building and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind protection, views, and As designated in the PHZ approval* Private ~80 sf per unit (balconies) Total Private open space = ~2701 privacy. Up to 80 square feet per dwelling unit shall be excluded from the gross floor area. Spaces enclosed with windows are not open spaces. Common Open Space* Residential and Mixed-Use development in the RT-35 & RT-50 zones shall provide common useable open space. The design of the common useable open space shall be suitable for a variety of user groups, including families with children. The common useable open space shall be intentionally designed for the use and enjoyment of the residents and as an integrated composition with the building, with particular attention to solar access, protection from wind, visibility both into and from the area, quality and durability of paving and furnishings, and use of appropriate and attractive plant materials. The size and dimensions of the common open space(s) shall be adequate and suitable for the number of units served by the open space(s). As designated in the PHZ approval* Common ~132sf per unit Total Common = ~4,761sf sf (roof deck + 2nd floor plaza) *Note: The Municipal Code has been updated to merge the private and common open space requirement for mixed uses in commercial zones, requiring an average of 150 sf/unit. SOFA 2 CAP was not updated to match with the Municipal Code update. The total combined open space for this project is 7,462sf, bringing the total open space per unit to 207sf. Parking (SOFA 2 5.040 RT Districts – Parking Regulations) Existing RT-35 Zoning Proposed PHZ Proposed Parking** Office 15 spaces 1 space/250 sf (General Business Office) = 25 spaces 1 space/250 sf (General Business Office) = 25 spaces 15 spaces (four Alma Street frontage spaces must be removed) Housing N/A 1 per studio unit 1.2 per 1-bedroom unit 1.5 per 2-bedroom or larger unit 1 per studio unit 1.2 per 1-bedroom unit 1.5 per 2-bedroom or larger unit 25 spaces (1 per studio) = 36 spaces (1 per studio) Tandem parking is permitted for multiple- family and two-family uses. = 36 spaces (1 per studio) Tandem parking is permitted for multiple- family and two-family uses. Total Parking Required: 61 spaces Proposed: 40 spaces on the plans, estimated parking provided due to Alma street parking compliance issues is 36 (applicant requesting 30% reduction, however, a greater reduction may be required due to the project's parking needing to be revised) **Parking discussion in the report details how the proposed PHZ parking design must be revised due to noncompliance with current regulations and how the requested parking reduction may increase. Loading Area Existing RT-35 Zoning Requirement Municipal Code 18.52 Requirements Proposed PHZ Office None None 1 space @ 10,000- 99,000 sf; the project has less than 10,000 of Office space 1 Proposed Housing N/A None No Requirement for Multiple Family Residential Uses None Proposed 4 February, 2021 Samuel Gutierrez Planner, City of Palo Alto RE: 955 Alma PHZ Application City Council Pre-Screening Hi Samuel – Thank you for working with us to bring this new mixed-use project to the City Council for a pre-screening review. The project goals are to add 36 Innovation Micro Studio units to an existing office use site. This mixed-use project will be all rental. To support this project we’re requesting a change to PC Zoning including increased FAR, 50’ building height, parking reduction for the residential units, and a rooftop terrace for use by the building occupants. Context & Height 955 Alma is located in the RT-35 zone across from the CalTrain line and the proposed height of 50’ is consistent with the scale and mass of other existing multi-family housing developments and RT-50 zoned sites in the area. The property is located between an RT-50 and RT-35 site on Alma with RT-35 zoned properties across Lane A West. The site is over 160’ from any R-1 neighborhood, far enough away to ensure that residents of this project will not have any view angles into any yards or solar impact on single family homes. FAR The max allowed residential square footage for this site under RT-35 would be 1.15 FAR or 12,075 sf. If the project were pursued under the HIP (Housing Incentive Program), 1.5 FAR or 15,750 sf would be allowed. This project is requesting 22,384 sf or 2.13 FAR for residential housing. The total project area of 28,186 sf or 2.68 FAR includes stairs, elevator, corridors, lobbies and other building circulation spaces that support the residential units. Jobs / Housing Ratio This project proposes to reduce existing office square footage and add 36 new Innovation Micro-Studio residences to an existing site in the RT-35 District. The site will be redeveloped by removing 1,740 sf of office use and adding 36 residential units. By simultaneously removing (5) jobs and adding 36 units, there’s a net add of 41 housing units to the community. H e a t h e r Y o u n g A r c h i t e c t s 9 5 5 A l m a – P r e - S c r e e n i n g Parking The existing office use on the site has 15 parking spaces serving the 8,088 sf of office FAR. The proposed new office square footage will reduce over 20% down to 6,348 sf and replace the existing 15 parking spaces. With and average unit size of only 342 sf, its position near the downtown Bus hub and Caltrain, as well as its proximity to a wealth of infrastructure resources such as grocery stores and restaurants, we believe car dependency is greatly reduced and we are requesting a 30% parking reduction on the residential portion of the project. Both short and long term on-site bike parking in generous quantities further supports the request of a parking reduction. Affordability Of the 36 units provided, 7 units are planned as Affordable units as part of the City’s 20% inclusionary housing requirement and under the PHZ will serve as the primary community benefit for the project. Under City of Palo Alto Option 2, (3) units would be Very-low income, (1) Moderate Income, and (3) Above Moderate Income/Workforce Housing. Unit Design At an average size of 342 square feet, these Innovation Micro Studio units are designed with efficiency in mind, utilizing every possible square foot of the space and employing some innovative storage techniques. Each unit will contain a full size, ADA compliant bathroom with a full size stacking washer and dryer. The galley kitchen is outfitted with a full complement of fixtures and amenities one would find in a standard one bedroom H e a t h e r Y o u n g A r c h i t e c t s 9 5 5 A l m a – P r e - S c r e e n i n g apartment, including a full size refrigerator. What makes the unit innovative is its clever use of space and transformability to address changing daily needs. Along with a full media wall and approximately 34 linear feet of storage, the unit will have a retractable coffee table, which is convertible to a dining table, that slips snuggly into the media wall to make more floor space. On the adjacent wall, a fold down desk converts to a home office work station, including recessed storage for a computer and books. 4 fold out chairs stack above this desk and are completely hidden when the cabinet is closed. Instead of a standard Murphy bed unit which takes up valuable floor space, the sofa unit converts to a queen size bed and is integrated with power and USB ports. Ten foot ceiling heights and a 9’ wide by 10’ high glazed wall with a sliding door, bringing generous amounts of light and air into the space. Open Space Due to the unit efficiency and compact nature, open space for the residents will be at a premium. Each unit opens out to a full size private balcony of roughly 72 sf, which is almost 25% as large as the unit itself. This project contains a South facing second floor common outdoor space for the residents, which is intended to be a more organic and lushly landscaped and will include private pockets of seating that serve as private outdoor rooms. While the 2nd floor plaza is relatively compact, the proposed roof top garden terrace serves as the primary common open space for the building occupants. Layout of the roof terrace is organized around individual outdoor “living rooms” which are separated comfortably from one another by planters and landscape zones. Roof screening elements, which also serve as guardrails and HVAC enclosures, further organize and maximize the usable roof space. A common access path connects all seating areas and serves as a link to both exit stairs and the accessible elevator. The organization of the roof garden elements also allows, at a future date, to accept solar panels to meet the requirements of Title 24, Part 6, Subchapter 2, of Section 110.10 of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Solar Ready Buildings. RT-35 As proposed, the project complies with all RT-35 setback requirements and will continue to provide streetscape landscaping at Alma, consistent with the current conditions and the adjacent buildings on either side. As part of the SOFA-II Plan there are current PC Regulations in 5.090 restricting FAR maximums within the RT Districts. Currently, for RT-35, that maximum is capped at 1.5:1, while FAR limits for PC development elsewhere in the municipal code does not set a FAR limit. As part of this submittal, we respectfully request a text amendment to 5.090 of the RT-District regulations allowing no FAR limits for PC development within the SOFA II RT-District, and ultimately be more in alignment with development standards of PC regulations elsewhere in the municipal code. In reviewing this project, we would like the City Council to consider the following adjustments under a PC-Rezone to approve 36 new housing units to the SOFA-2 district: 1. Increased height: Revising height from 35' to 50', consistent with the pattern of other approved PC projects and RT-50 projects along Alma Street. H e a t h e r Y o u n g A r c h i t e c t s 9 5 5 A l m a – P r e - S c r e e n i n g 2. Increased FAR: from base1.15:1 to 2.68:1 3. Parking: 30% parking reduction on the new Innovation Micro Studios 4. Open Space: Allowance for a Rooftop Terrace as common open space: Including allowing for an elevator overrun and 2 code required exit stairs to access the roof level. We believe that approval of 955 Alma with these zoning modifications will contribute a new variety of housing stock for the community and will extend the established pattern of vibrant multi-family housing along the Alma Street corridor. Sincerely – ______________________________ Heather Young, Heather Young Architects Chapter V 5.090 Development Standards PC Districts 70 5.090 RT Districts – Regulations for New Planned Community (PC) Districts Planned Community (PC) Districts may be established in SOFA 2 pursuant to the procedures in Section 6.030 of this CAP. (a) Location New PC districts in SOFA 2 may only be granted to sites zoned RT-35 or RT-50 when the new PC district is applied for. Existing PC districts in SOFA 2 may be amended. (b) Uses The only uses that are permitted in a new PC District in SOFA 2 are: (1) Residential projects in which all units are affordable to income levels up to 120% of the Santa Clara County Median Income, and which comply with the City’s BMR Program. (2) Exclusively rental residential projects with a maximum average unit size of 1250 square feet. When a PC District is granted for an exclusively rental residential project, a covenant in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney must be recorded against the land guaranteeing that the parcel or airspace will not be subdivided, and that the units will continue to be offered for rent individually. The covenant must last for ninety years or the life of the building; whichever is lesser, and must be completed prior to issuance of building permits. (3) Social service uses (excluding social service offices), as defined in Appendix C-1. (4) Retail or social service offices incidental to other uses on the site. (c) Maximum Floor Area Ratio – RT-35 District For sites located in the RT-35 district, the maximum FAR for a new PC District shall be determined as part of the review process, but in no event shall exceed 1.5:1. (d) Maximum Floor Area Ratio – RT-50 District For sites located in the RT-50 district: (1) the maximum FAR for a new PC District for the rental and social service projects described in subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) shall be determined as part of the review process, but in no event shall exceed 2.0:1. (2) the maximum FAR for a new PC District for 100% affordable residential projects, as described in subsection (b)(1), shall be determined as part of the review process. (e) General Development Standards (1) The height limit for the site shall not be increased by establishment of a PC District, except as provided in paragraph (3). Chapter V 5.090 Development Standards PC Districts 7171 (2) The daylight plane applicable to the site shall not be altered by establishment of a PC District, except as provided in paragraph (3).. (3) Exceptions to the design standards in this subsection (e) may be granted as part of a Design Enhancement Exception, as set forth in PAMC 18.91. (4) All residential, non-residential, and mixed-use projects must comply with the design guidelines and performance standards of Chapters 18.64 and 18.28. (f) Recycling Storage All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.48.070. (g) Inspections Each PC district shall be inspected by the building division at least once every three years for compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of the ordinance under which the district was created. 7KHSHUIRUPDQFHVWDQGDUGVWKDWZHUHSUHYLRXVO\RXWOLQHGLQ3$0&6HFWLRQZHUHUHYLVHG DQGDUHQRZUHIOHFWHGLQ3$0&6HFWLRQ3HUIRUPDQFH&ULWHULDLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK 2UGLQDQFH Chapter V 5.100 Development Standards Non-conforming Uses 72 5.100 RT Districts - Non-conforming Uses and Facilities (a) Legal Non-conforming Uses Any use existing on November 24, 2003, and which, prior to that date, was a lawful conforming permitted use or conditional use operating subject to a conditional use permit, or was a grandfathered use under the previous zoning regulations, may remain as a legal non-conforming use and shall not require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of PAMC Chapter 18.94. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and occupancy by the same use. Any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement, or any increase in the existing degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 5.070 (RT Districts - Historic and Seismic Floor Area Bonuses), or according to subsection (d) of this Section 5.100. Remodeling, improvement or replacement of medical, professional or general business or administrative office uses of a size exceeding 5,000 square feet that are deemed legal non-conforming uses pursuant to this subsection (a), shall not result in increased floor area devoted to such office uses. For purposes of this section, an existing use is defined as: (1) A use which was being conducted on August 28, 1986; or (2) A use not being conducted on August 28, 1986, if the use was temporarily discontinued due to a vacancy of six months or less before August 28, 1986. (b) Legal Non-conforming Uses – Discontinuance or Replacement (1) If a legal non-conforming use ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. (2) Discontinuance of occupancy for a period of up to twenty-four months after destruction of the facility in which a non-conforming use is located from fire or other casualty, or for a period of up to twenty-four months after issuance of a building permit for remodeling or redevelopment of a project, shall not be considered cessation of use provided the director of planning and community environment determines that the owner is diligently pursuing redevelopment of the facility. (c) Legal Non-complying Facilities PAMC Chapter 18.94 notwithstanding, a non-complying facility existing on November 24, 2003 and which, when built, was a complying facility, may remain as a legal non- complying facility and shall not be subject to the provisions of PAMC Chapter 18.94. Such a facility shall be permitted to be remodeled, improved or replaced; provided, that such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area, nor shall such remodeling, improvement or replacement result in increased height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the facility, or any increase in the existing Chapter V 5.100 Development Standards Non-conforming Uses 73 73 degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to Section 5.070 (RT Districts - Historic and Seismic Floor Area Bonuses), or according to subsection (d) of this Section 5.100. (d) Addition of Housing to Legal Non-complying Facilities Legal non-complying facilities that are non-complying, in whole or in part, because the facilities have a commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) greater than that permitted by this CAP, may nevertheless expand up to the maximum mixed-use FAR for the district, provided all additional floor area is reserved for residential use in conformance with all applicable development standards of this CAP. Chapter V 5.110 Development Standards Historic Preservation 74 5.110 All SOFA 2 Districts - Historic Preservation The following regulations apply to all sites in SOFA 2. (a) Preservation of Historic Resources SOFA 2 Historic Resources shall be maintained and preserved, except as provided below. Restoration, additions and alterations shall be in substantial conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Adaptive reuse is permitted and encouraged. (b) Demolition Under Special Circumstances No permit shall be issued to demolish or cause to be demolished all or any part of a SOFA 2 Historic Resource unless one of the following occurs: (1) The city council, in compliance with the procedures in Section 6.030 of this CAP, determines that under the historic designation, taking into account the current market value, the value of transferable development rights, and the costs of rehabilitation to meet the requirements of the building code or other city, state or federal laws, the property retains no reasonable economic use; or (2) The chief building official or the fire chief, after consultation, to the extent feasible, with the department of planning and community environment, determines that an imminent safety hazard exists and that demolition of the building is the only feasible means to secure the public safety; or (3) the council finds, after review and recommendation from the historic resources board, that (A) demolition of a SOFA 2 Historic Resource would allow the achievement of a competing Coordinated Area Plan goal at a level that would be of substantially greater public benefit than historic preservation, and (B) that preservation of the historic resource would be a substantial impediment to achievement of that public benefit. Examination of alternatives is required, including, but not limited to, preservation, alteration, demolition, and relocation (c) R-2 Historic Sites Notwithstanding the residential density limits set forth in the R-2 district in PAMC Section 18.17.050(g), for a site in the SOFA R-2 district containing a SOFA 2 Historic Resource, not more than two units shall be permitted on a site with a lot area of 5,000 square feet or more. The second unit may be located over a garage. Chapter V 5.120 Development Standards Environmental Protection 75 5.120 All SOFA 2 Districts - Environmental Protection (a) Noise (1) Design of all residential development within the RT-35 and RT-50 districts located in an area where the Ldn exceeds 60 dBA shall be subject to modeling of interior noise levels by acoustical engineers prior to construction to ensure compliance with City of Palo Alto standard of 45 dB Ldn for residential development set forth in PAMC Title 9 (2) All residential development proposed in a noise environment of 65 dBA Ldn shall be designed so that all required exterior open space shall have a noise environment not exceeding 65 Ldn (b) Geology Project applicants shall, if determined necessary by the building official, contract with a qualified soils or geotechnical engineer to perform a detailed geotechnical study for any development proposed within SOFA 2. All mitigation measures identified in the geotechnical report shall be implemented in order to reduce geologic-related impacts to a less than significant level. The geotechnical report shall be subject to review and approval by the Palo Alto Building Division prior to grading activities. (c) Hydrology Development within SOFA 2 shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMP’s) as defined within Policy N-21 of the Comprehensive Plan, into project plans. The project applicant shall prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan identifying the specific BMP’s to be followed during the project. Incorporation of the BMP’s identified in the prevention plan shall be completed prior to the issuance of any grading permit, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Public Works Engineering Division. (d) Groundwater or Soil Contamination (1) For all redevelopment projects on sites suspected by the city of containing groundwater or soil contamination within the planning area, the City shall require that the project applicant hire a qualified environmental testing company to collect and test random soil samples for analysis of soil and groundwater contamination. The environmental consultant, hired and paid for by the applicant, shall comply with all regulations governing sampling methodologies, shipping and handling procedures, and testing methodologies. The analysis shall comply with the planned schedule and analytical procedures for providing the information specified in the State of California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA). (2) Validated data shall be submitted to: (A) the Santa Clara County Department of Health; (B) the Santa Clara Valley Water District; and Chapter V 5.120 Development Standards Environmental Protection 76 76 (C) the State of California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control for review. (3) In the event that contamination is discovered, affected soils shall be removed in compliance with all federal and state regulations governing clean-up procedures and disposal of hazardous materials. Clean up shall be certified as complete by the Santa Clara County Department of Health and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. (e) Asbestos All development projects shall be comply with City of Palo Alto Fire Department standards and procedures for asbestos containing material. (f) Demolition Waste All development projects subject to ARB or joint ARB/HRB review shall prepare construction recycling plans as part of the project approval process. The construction recycling plan shall be implemented through explicit provisions in demolition and construction contracts. The construction recycling plans shall include the following specific steps: (1) Recovery of concrete, asphalt, and other inert solids; (2) Recovery of scrap metals; (3) Salvage of building fixtures and other re-usable items; and (4) Siting containers at the construction site for cardboard, beverage containers, wood, and other recyclable materials. (g) Solid Waste Disposal All new development projects subject to ARB or joint ARB/HRB review shall prepare operation recycling plans as part of the project approval process. The ongoing programs shall describe the proposed diversion rates for different material types and the location to which they will be diverted, as well as locations, areas, types of bins, etc. In addition, the program should contain the following specific information: (1) Specific locations, square footage, and equipment that would be used to hold and handle recyclables and solid waste; (2) The locations of containers within the retail facility near high volume pedestrian areas to encourage waste minimization and recycling; and (3) Store layouts that incorporate space for the storage of recyclable material, principally cardboard, prior to its movement to another area for processing and transport. (h) Archaeological Resources In the event that archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities, all work shall cease within 150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified, professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be developed and implemented in accordance with Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines. Any discoveries shall be reported Chapter V 5.120 Development Standards Environmental Protection 77 77 to the City of Palo Alto community development director for forwarding to the historic resources board. Ground floor retail on Homer Avenue Chapter VI 6.010 Implementation Permits, Exceptions, and Review procedures 78 Chapter VI - Implementation Section List 6.010 Permits, Exceptions, and Review Procedures 6.020 Plan Amendments 6.030 Establishment of Planned Community Districts 6.040 SOFA 2 Historic Resource List Procedures 6.050 Procedures for Demolition of SOFA 2 Historic Resources The following chapter provides information on the approvals necessary for projects proposed within SOFA 2, as well as provisions for the establishment of Planned Community districts, and procedures for designating and removing structures from the SOFA 2 Historic Resource List. The procedures in this Chapter VI are the only procedures applicable in SOFA 2. In addition, this chapter creates a mechanism by which alterations can be made to the plan in the future. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) sections referred to in this chapter are contained in Appendix H for reference. 6.010 Review Procedures (a) New Construction All new external alterations or improvements in SOFA 2 shall require a Coordinated Development Permit pursuant to PAMC Section 19.10.050. All such development, excluding single-family or two-family uses, shall also require a Certificate of Occupancy, pursuant to PAMC Section 16.04.120, prior to occupying any structure. A City of Palo Alto business license shall be required if the City adopts such a license in the future prior to occupying any structure. (b) Conditional Uses The permit granting procedure for all uses that require a conditional use permit, as specified in Chapter V of this CAP shall be as set forth in Chapter 18.90 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (c) Exceptions to Development Standards (1) In the RT-35, RT-50, RM-15 and RM-30 districts, the only exceptions to the development standards that may be granted are variances and design enhancement exceptions: (A) Variances are discouraged, but shall be granted when necessary to avoid a regulatory taking. The procedure for the granting of variances shall be as set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.90. (B) Design enhancement exceptions shall only be permitted for exceptions to setbacks and parking lot design. Design enhancement exceptions may be granted by the architectural review board in the manner set forth in Chapter 16.48. Chapter VI 6.010 Implementation Permits, Exceptions, and Review procedures 79 79 (2) In the R-2 district, the only exceptions to development standards that may be granted are variances and home improvement exceptions, pursuant to Title 18 of the PAMC. (d) Review of New Construction or Alterations (1) Projects requiring a building permit, including a grading or demolition permit, are subject to design review pursuant to PAMC Chapter 16.48. (2) When reviewing projects under this subsection (d), the city shall use the compatibility requirements and design guidelines of Chapter IV of this CAP in addition to the design guidelines of PAMC Chapter 16.48. (e) Review of Projects on SOFA 2 Historic Resources Exterior alterations requiring a building permit, including grading, shall be subject to review by the HRB when such projects are on sites on the SOFA 2 Historic Resource List. Exterior alterations do not include ordinary maintenance or repair. The standards of review for projects on SOFA 2 Historic Resources shall be: (A) the compatibility requirements and design guidelines in Chapter IV of this CAP; and (B) the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. (f) Projects on SOFA 2 Potential Historic Resources Sites on the SOFA 2 Potential Historic Resource List shall undergo a study to determine their eligibility for the SOFA 2 Historic Resource List before undergoing any external alterations requiring a building permit, including a grading or demolition permit, except if the project conforms with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. External alterations do not include ordinary maintenance or repair. If the director determines that a site meets the criteria for addition to the SOFA 2 Historic Resource List, as set forth in 6.040, it shall be added to the List. If such a site is found to be ineligible for the SOFA 2 Historic Resource List, it shall be removed from the SOFA 2 Potential Historic Resource List. (g) Staff Review of Small Projects For projects subject to ARB review, alterations that do not alter a street facing façade, do not demolish more than twenty percent of the exterior walls, do not add to or enlarge the structure above the first floor, and do not construct, relocate or demolish an accessory structure are considered small projects and may be approved by staff in the manner set forth in Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC. (h) Administrative Approval of Minor Changes in Projects The provisions of Chapter 18.99 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code regarding administrative approval of minor changes in projects shall apply within SOFA 2. (i) Subdivisions, Parcel Maps, and other Land Divisions All divisions of property within SOFA 2 shall be reviewed and processed in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the PAMC. Chapter VI 6.020 Implementation Plan Amendments 80 6.020 Plan Amendments Amendments to this Coordinated Area Plan may be initiated by any property owner in SOFA 2, by motion of the city council at the request of the planning commission, or by the Director. Plan amendments shall be processed in the same manner as Comprehensive Plan amendments, as set forth in Section 19.04.080 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 6.030 Establishment of Planned Community Districts Planned community districts in SOFA 2 shall be established in the same manner as planned community districts elsewhere in the City, subject to the specific requirements of this CAP. All SOFA 2 planned community districts shall comply with the development standards and other regulations set forth in section 5.090. (a) Initiation Application for designation of a planned community district may be made as provided in Chapter 18.68 of the Municipal Code. (b) Application Contents In addition to that information required under Chapter 18.68 for a planned community district application, the applicant shall submit a written statement explaining how the proposed district is consistent with the SOFA CAP, Phase 2. (c) Additional Materials Required In addition to the application, the applicant shall submit the following items: (1) A development program statement, as described in PAMC Section 18.68.080; (2) A development plan, as described in PAMC Section 18.68.090; (3) A development schedule, as described in PAMC Section 18.68.100; and (4) A fee, as prescribed by the municipal fee schedule, shall be submitted with the application, no part of which shall be returnable to the applicant. (5) The parking and loading plan, showing the number of spaces and the location shall be based upon the requirements of Section 5.040 of Chapter V of this CAP, unless requested modifications to meet the needs of the individual project are supported by traffic engineering studies or other relevant data, demonstrating the feasibility and adequacy of the plan. (d) Approval Process (1) Initial review by the planning and transportation commission (A) The applicant for a PC district shall initially submit to the planning and transportation commission a development program statement, development plan, and a development schedule as described in subsection (c). The plot plans, landscape development plan, and design plan in the development plan Chapter VI 6.030 Implementation Establishment of Planned Community Districts 81 81 should only be preliminary during this phase of review by the planning commission. (B) If the planning and transportation commission acts favorably in its initial review of the PC application, the development plan shall then be submitted to the architectural review board (ARB), as set forth in subsection (d)(2). (C) If the planning commission acts unfavorably in its initial review of the application, the commission shall recommend denial, and the recommendation shall be forwarded directly to the city council for review under subsection (d)(5). (2) Review by the architectural review board In this phase, a detailed plot plan, landscape development plan, and design plan of the development plan shall be submitted for design review pursuant to Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and this CAP. The development plan as approved by the board is then returned to the planning and transportation commission for its final review and recommendation, as set forth in subsections (3) and (4), before being submitted to the city council for final action. (3) Planning and transportation commission final review: The planning and transportation commission shall review and consider all materials submitted by the applicant pursuant to this Section, and shall prepare and recommend to the city council, as appropriate, the specific regulations to be applied within the proposed planned community district. The specific regulations may modify those regulations contained in this Coordinated Area Plan, subject to the limitations of section 5.090 of Chapter V, as is appropriate to meet the individual district needs and shall include the items listed in PAMC 18.68.110. (4) Final planning and transportation commission recommendation The decision of the commission shall be rendered within a reasonable time following the close of any public hearing or hearings and the written recommendation of the commission shall be forwarded to the council within thirty days. The recommendation of the commission shall set forth fully the findings and determinations of the commission with respect to the application. (5) Council action Upon receipt of the recommendation of the commission on establishment of or change to a SOFA 2 PC District, the council shall hold a noticed public hearing on the matter. After consideration of the recommendation of the commission, and the completion of a public hearing, the council may approve, modify, or disapprove the proposed establishment of or change to a SOFA 2 PC District. Should the council determine establishment of or change to a SOFA 2 PC district is appropriate, such establishment or change shall be accomplished by ordinance amending the SOFA 2 PC and the Palo Alto Zoning Map. Chapter VI 6.030 Implementation Establishment of Planned Community Districts 82 82 (h) Findings Required for Approval The planning and transportation commission, prior to recommending approval of any PC district, and the city council, prior to approving an ordinance designating and regulating any PC district, shall make all of the following findings with respect to the application: (1) The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the SOFA 2 PC is necessary to accommodate them within the SOFA Phase 2 area. (2) Development of the site under the provisions of the SOFA 2 PC will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of Residential Transitional Districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning and transportation 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 purposes of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and this Coordinated Area Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. (i) Hearing Notice Notice of planning commission or city council hearings shall be given as provided in PAMC Section 18.98.060. (j) Post-approval Requirements The following regulations shall apply to any PC district approved pursuant to this section: (1) Change in development schedule For good cause shown by the property owner in writing and unless otherwise specified by the specific applicable regulations for the district, prior to the expiration of the original time schedule for the development, the Director may, without a public hearing, modify the time limits imposed by any adopted development schedule; provided, that such modification shall not extend the schedule by more than one year; and provided, that only one such modification may be made. (2) Failure to meet development schedule Sixty days prior to the expiration of the development schedule, the Director shall notify the property owner in writing of the date of expiration. Failure to meet the approved development schedule, including an extension, if granted, shall result in: (A) The expiration of the property owner's right to develop under the PC district. The zoning administrator shall notify the property owner, the city council, the planning commission and the building official of such expiration; and (B) The zoning administrator's initiating a zone change for the property subject to the PC district in accordance with Chapter 18.98 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The property owner may submit a new application for a PC district concurrently with the zoning administrator's recommendation for a zone change. Chapter VI 6.030 Implementation Establishment of Planned Community Districts 83 83 (3) Resubmittal of application When an application for establishment of a planned community district has been submitted by a property owner and subsequently denied by the council, no new application by a property owner for the same change, or for substantially the same change, either with respect to properties included within the proposed change or with respect to proposed district classifications, or both, shall be filed or accepted by the zoning administrator within one year of the date of closing of the hearing before the commission, except upon a showing to the satisfaction of the zoning administrator of a substantial change of circumstances. Adaptive reuse of a historic building Attachment E Project Plans During the ongoing Shelter-in-Place, project plans are only available online. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “955 Alma St” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/955-Alma-Street- 21PLN-00013 City of Palo Alto (ID # 11994) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/18/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2239 Wellesley: PHZ Prescreening Title: 2239 Wellesley (21PLN -00045): Request by Cato Investments, LLC for Prescreening of Their Proposal to Rezone the Properties at 2239 and 2241 Wellesley from R -1 (Single Family Residential) to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning(PHZ) and to Redevelop the Site with a 24 - unit Multi-Family Development. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project; any Subsequent Formal Application Would be Subject to CEQA Review. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council conduct a prescreening and provide comments regarding the applicant’s proposal to rezone the subject parcel from R-1 to Planned Housing Zone/Planned Community (PHZ/PC). No formal Council action may be taken during a preliminary review, and comments provided during a prescreening are not binding on the City or the applicant. Executive Summary This prescreening is a request to rezone the Single-family Residential (R-1) zoned properties at 2239 and 2241 Wellesley Street to “Planned Housing Zoning (PHZ)”1 in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.38 (Planned Community Zoning). The parcels are surrounded by R-1 zoning and located near the College Terrace library. The proposal does not meet most of the R-1 Zone District development standards. Additionally, the proposal does not meet the special standards outlined in PAMC Chapter 18.38 for PC projects adjacent to certain residential uses or zone districts. The proposed density and use also conflict with the site’s Comprehensive Plan land use designation (single-family) and would therefore 1 Referred to in this report as "Planned Housing Zone" to emphasize the focus on housing as the benefit to the community. PAMC Section 18.38, which outlines the requirement and process for Planned Community (PC) Zoning, remains the underlying code supporting application of this policy City of Palo Alto Page 2 require a Land Use Map Amendment, in addition to the rezoning, to accommodate the proposed use. In accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.79.030(A), a prescreening review is required for legislative changes, including rezoning, prior to submittal of a formal application. Prescreenings are intended to solicit early feedback on proposed projects and, like all study sessions, cannot result in any formal action. Background In accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.79.030(A), a prescreening review is required for legislative changes, including rezoning, before the submittal of a formal application. Prescreening applications are intended to solicit early feedback on proposed projects and, like all study sessions, cannot result in any formal action. Because this proposal may return to the City Council as a quasi-judicial application, Councilmembers should refrain from forming firm opinions supporting or opposing the project. Project related information is available online and as well as conceptual project plans at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/2239- Wellesley-21PLN-00045 and https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp- development-services/new-development-projects/2239-wellesley.pdf?TargetID=319, respectively. City Council PHZ Program Refinements On April 12, 2021, the City Council discussed and updated parameters it would consider for future PHZ applications.2 While the multi-part motion included a number of future considerations, more immediately, the Council’s motion directed PHZ applications meet the following criteria: • Clarify that the PHZ has been intended to only apply to housing incentive program (HIP) areas, other commercial districts and zone districts allowing higher density housing, excluding areas east of 101; • Provide parameters for what is meant by “moderate adjustments to base zoning for PHZ projects”; • Clarify that the PHZ must be predominantly housing and only a minority component of office development; • PHZ is prohibited in R-1, R-2, and RE zoning, except for projects that have already been 2 Action Minutes for the April 12, 2021 Council hearing are available at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council- agendas-minutes/2021/04-12-21-ccm-draft-action-minutes.pdf City of Palo Alto Page 3 prescreened; and • Allow PHZ in light industrial areas as long as it is not incompatible use; At the time of this motion, the subject prescreening application was on file, but had not yet been prescreened by the City Council. The conceptual project does not appear to meet three of the five criteria principally due to its location in the R -1 district and the conceptual design exceeding many of the base district zoning standards. Since a PHZ application requires a legislative change to the City’s zoning map, the City Counci l has broad discretion on whether to approve or not approve a future application, if filed. Even if the project does not meet the Council’s stated qualifying criteria, an applicant could still choose to file an application and staff would process it in accordance with the City’s regulations. Project Description The owner, Cato Investments, LLC, requests a prescreening review for a conceptual residential project containing 24 dwelling units. A location map is included in Attachment A; the preliminary schematic drawings are included in Attachment C. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing residential buildings on two existing properties (2239 and 2241 Wellesley) and merge the two parcels in order to develop a three-story multi- family residential building with podium (ground level) parking. The resulting lot area would be 14,875 square feet. The proposed floor area would be 20,508 square feet (excluding required parking area per Code Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(B)) resulting in a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.38 to 1. The building would extend to approximately 36 feet, 10 inches in height above grade. There would be 13 studios and 11 one-bedroom units. The applicant proposes to provide five inclusionary units, two at very low-income levels (31-50% of AMI or below) and three at low- income levels (51-80% of AMI or below). The plans appear to suggest that the project would utilize concessions under the state density bonus allowances. It is unclear, however, what the applicant’s intent is in making this assertion. A PHZ application if filed and approved would set forth the development potential for a property and approve a specific development plan. The reference to the state density bonus with respect to the subject conceptual plan may reflect a misunderstan ding about the state law or the local PHZ process. Discussion As shown in the zoning comparison table in Attachment B, the project does not meet many of the requirements in the Planned Community special requirements section (PAMC 18.38.150). The project also conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for the site is single-family residential, which applies to “residential neighborhoods primarily characterized by detached single-family homes, typically with one dwelling unit on each lot. Private and public schools and churches are conditional uses requiring permits…The net density in single family areas will range from 1 to 7 units per acre but rises to a maximum of 14 units on parcels where second units or duplexes occur.” The single-family residential land use does not allow for multi-family residential development. Therefore, the applicant would be required to apply for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment in order to accommodate the proposed project. The City’s Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Land Use and Housing Elements, include goals and policies that encourage housing development (Policy L-2.3 and L-3.3). However, the Comprehensive Plan also identifies programs and policies that speak to transitions in scale between developments (Policy L-1.3), discouraging abrupt changes in scale and density (Policy L-6.7 and Program L6.7.1) and that discourage reducing daylight plane requirements adjacent to single-family residential uses (Policy L-6.8). Zoning Compliance4 The PHZ application provides a path for home builders and the City Council to consider adjustments in zoning that stimulate more housing units. However, Council expressed in it s motion on April 12, 2021 that it intends the PHZ to be used for modest changes to the existing zoning regulations of a property. A review of the conceptual plans shows that the project would not meet the typical zoning requirements allowed by the R-1 zoning regulations, as shown in Attachment B. The project would need to vary from the base zoning in order to allow for the requested height, floor area, lot coverage, setbacks, daylight plane, lot size, and density. The proposed open space also appears to be less than what is required for most multi-family developments within the City and is not clearly shown on the plans. The proposed FAR is approximately four times the floor area ratio allowed within the R-1 zone and almost none of the special standards required for PHZ projects are met under the current design (e.g. setbacks, daylight plane, and height). These are significant differences between the base zoning and the proposed project; suggesting the project may not align with Council’s most recent policy direction regarding PHZs. Special Standards 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Long-Range-Planning/2030- Comprehensive-Plan 4 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Page 5 PAMC Section 18.38.050 sets forth special standards for projects looking to utilize the PC zoning district and that are adjacent to low density residential zone districts, including the R-1 zone district. These include special setbacks, daylight plane, and height requirements. The project does not meet any of the special standards set forth in the municipal code. Specifically, along the rear property line (abutting 2241 Wellesley) the project provides a 10 -foot setback where a 20-foot setback is required. The project exceeds the daylight plane by an entire floor level and exceeds the height requirements by approximately two feet. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The applicant requests a 33% parking reduction from typical multi-family development standards. The plans seem to suggest that the applicant would be utilizing state density bonus concessions or allowances to achieve this reduction; however, as previously noted, this is not necessary for a PHZ application, as the PHZ itself may authorize the requested parking ratio . Policy Implications Prescreenings are intended to solicit early feedback on proposed projects and, like all study sessions, cannot result in any formal action. Therefore, informal comments from Councilmembers would not have any policy implications. However, Council has indicated in past motions that it would not support a legislative change to rezone R-1 properties to PHZ. Unless the Council has a change in perspective, it appears the subject c onceptual plan does not qualify for PHZ consideration. Resource Impact Staff time processing this prescreening as well as any future application is subject to cost recovery. Timeline Following the prescreening review, the applicant will consider Council’s comments and determine how they want to proceed. Any formal application to rezone the property to a planned community zone would be subject to Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), Architectural Review Board, and City Council review. Stakeholder Engagement This item was published in the Daily Post on May 7, 2021, which is 11 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 4, 2021, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Many members of the public have corresponded regarding the proposed project. Some have expressed support for more housing, particularly affordable housing opportunities. Many have expressed concerns regarding the scale and massing of the proposed projec t in comparison to City of Palo Alto Page 6 the existing surrounding structures. Members of the public also raised concerns about traffic and parking. All written comments received on the project are included on the project website. A link to the project website is included in Attachment C. Environmental Review The prescreening application involves no discretionary action and is therefore not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequent project applications will require project-specific environmental analysis. Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment C: Project Plans (DOCX) College Terrace_ Library 125.0' 25. 50.0' 180.0' 125.0' 50 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 34.0' 125.0' 34.0' 125.0' 61.5' 125.0' 36.0' 125.0' 36.0' 125.0' 125.0' 75.0' 125.0' 13.5' 50.0' 37.5' 115.0' 112.5' 0' 100.0' 125.0' 100.0' 125.0' 50.0' 25.0' 50.0' 500 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 160.0' 310.0' 310.0' 0 37.5' 115.0' 37.5' 115.0' 37.5' 115.0' 115.0' 37.5' 115.0' 5 50.0' 115.0' 115.0' 75.0'115.0' 75.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 115.0' 50.0' 115.0' 50.0' 115.0' 50.0' 115.0' 50.0' 115.0' 37.5' 115.0' 37.5' 115.0' 37.5' 115.0' 37.5' 50.0' 115.0' 46.0' 125.0' 46.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 2369236123532345 2277 2251 2271 55 2226- 2248 811 817 819 7 707 703 2 2215 2253 2269 22952285 2314 2 2282-2288 2321 750 720 730 732 739 757 2241 2255 2260 2280 2239 2300 2252 2254 715- 727 2178 228 WILLIA M S STREET W P F RMD (N P ) M ayfield Park This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0' 63' Location Map: 2239 and 2241 Wellesley CITY O F PALO A L T O I N C O R P O R A T E D C ALIFO R N I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2021-03-10 15:28:09 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 2239/2241 Wellesley, 21PLN-00045 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.12 (R-1 DISTRICT) *Bold indicates exceedance of special standards for Planned Community/PHZ projects Regulation Required R-1 Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 6,000-9,999 sf area, 60 foot width, 100 foot depth 2 lots 2239 Wellesley: 8,625 sf (75x115) 2241 Wellesley: 6,250 sf (50x125) 1 lot: 14,875 sf (0.34 acre) Minimum/Contextual Front Yard (2) 20 feet or the average setback (18.12.040(e)) 2239 Wellesley: 70 feet 2241 Wellesley: ~15 feet 20 feet (20 feet required per PHZ Special standards) Rear Yard 20 feet 2239 Wellesley: 2.5 feet 2241 Wellesley: 34 feet 10 feet (16 feet required per PHZ Special standards) Interior Side Yard 6 feet 2239 Wellesley: 16 feet 2241 Wellesley: 11 feet; 0 feet 8-10 feet (6 feet required per PHZ Special standards) Street Side Yard 16 feet 2239 Wellesley: 15.5 feet 2241 Wellesley: Not applicable 16 feet Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps Not applicable Not applicable Max. Building Height 30 feet (3) Unknown 38 feet, 10 inches (35 feet required per PHZ special standards) Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle (6) Unknown Exceeds (same daylight plane is required by PHZ special standards) Rear Yard Daylight Plane 16 feet at rear setback line then 60 degree angle (6) Unknown Exceeds (not shown; same daylight plane is required by PHZ special standards) Max. Site Coverage 35% with an additional 5% for covered patio/ overhangs (5,206.25 sf plus 743.75) Unknown ~62% (~9,233 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 45% for first 5,000 sf lot size and 30% for lot size in excess of 5,000 sf (3,312.5 sf; and 2,600 sf) 2239 Wellesley: 1,040 sf 2241 Wellesley: 2,590 sf 1.38:1 (20,508 sf) Max. House Size 6,000 sf 2,590 sf PHZ leaves this to Council discretion Residential Density One unit, except as provided in 18.12.070 One unit for each lot 24 units (70.5 DU/AC) (3) R-1 Floodzone Heights: Provided, in a special flood hazard area as defined in Chapter 16.52, the maximum heights are increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevation, up to a maximum building height of 33 feet. (6) R-1 Floodzone Daylight Plane: Provided, if the site is in a special flood hazard area and is entitled to an increase in the maximum height, the heights for the daylight planes shall be adjusted by the same amount. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 18.12.060 and CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multi-Family Residential Uses Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 parking spaces per studio or one-bedroom unit (24 spaces required) Unknown 16 spaces (24 required) Attachment C Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Councilmembers. During Shelter-in-Place, project plans are only available online. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “2239 Wellesley” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/2239- Wellesley-21PLN-00045 City of Palo Alto (ID # 12272) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/18/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Ordinance to Update Density Bonus Code PAMC 18.15 Title: Adoption of Ordinances Responding to State Housing Bills Regarding Density Bonus and Affordable Housing, Environmental Assessment: Exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality A ct (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached ordinances, which update Palo Alto’s Density Bonus (Attachment A) and Parking (Attachment B) regulations to comply with recent changes in state law. Background: Chapter 18.15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code outlines the City’s Residential Density Bonus program. This Chapter was enacted to comply with the state density bonus l aw, California Government Code Section 65915. California’s density bonus law requires local governments to provide housing developers with density bonuses and other concessions or incentives when the developers agree to provide a certain percentage of affordable housing. This state law requires compliance by local governments, even in the absence of local ordinances providing state - mandated bonuses, concessions, or incentives. A local ordinance, however, can provide clarity to developers and the public regarding the interaction of state density bonus law with other aspects of local zoning regulations. Palo Alto first adopted its Residential Density Bonus ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.15) in 2014. Since that time, the City has periodically updated the code in response to changes in state law. The pace of changes at the state level has increased in recent years. In September of 2020, the Governor signed a package of fifteen bills aimed at increasing City of Palo Alto Page 2 affordable housing production and reducing housing costs. Several bills aimed to increase the incentives to build more affordable housing and to build more housing near public transit. Assembly Bill 2345, amending Sections 65400 and 65915 of the California Government Code, addressed both. This bill greatly expanded the bonuses available to developers and it requires substantial changes to the City’s practices and ordinances. Other amendments to the state density bonus law from prior years, such as AB 1934, SB 1227 and AB 2372, have also changed the City’s obligation s regarding granting density bonuses and concessions or incentives. The Palo Alto Municipal Code has not been updated to reflect those responsibilities. Assembly Bill 1851 was also part of this package. This bill targeted parking requirements for religious institution affiliated housing development projects. It required an update to the adjustments available in the City’s Parking Code, found in Chapter 18.52. On March 31, 2021, the Planning and Transportation Commission unanimously recommended that the Council adopt the attached ordinances.1 Discussion: Regardless of whether the City acts to amend its ordinances, the changes to state law will dictate the City’s actions. The state law is written to supersede any conflicting local ordinances. Amending the City’s Zoning Code will provide clarity to the public about the current laws applicable in the City. The following are changes made to Chapter 18.15, Residential Density Bonus: • The Chapter is retitled to “Density Bonus.” Though all density bonuses, co ncessions, and incentives relate to the provision of affordable housing, non-residential developments may still acquire some incentives under Density Bonus law through partnerships or donations. Section 18.15.030(i)(iii) also reflects this change. • Under state law, thresholds to be eligible for density bonuses, concessions and incentives were lowered, while density bonus caps for several key types of developments were increased from thirty-five percent (35%) to fifty percent (50%). Some 100% affordable housing developments now have no unit density restrictions. The scales were thus adjusted in Sections 18.15.030, 18.15.050 and 18.15.060. 1 Staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-services/file- migration/bc/ptc/2021-agenda/ptc-3.31-agenda-packet.pdf and Draft Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and- transportation-commission/2021/ptc-draft-minutes-3.31.2021.pdf City of Palo Alto Page 3 • Some terminology has been updated throughout Chapter 18.15. State law no longer separately addresses “common interest development” in its affordable housing laws. In addition, state law now refers to “units sold to persons and families of low or moderate income,” and this phrase has been imported into the code. The phrase “handicapped parking” has been replaced with “parking for persons with a disability.” • State law grants bonuses, concessions and incentives to developers building housing for lower income students. This was not reflected in Chapter 18.15. With the attached amendments, these bonuses, concessions and incentives would be codified in 18.15.030(c). Other incentives for developers building housing for lower income students can be found throughout Chapter 18.15, such as in Section 18.15.050, Development Concessions and Incentives. • Additional bonuses, concessions and incentives were created for affordable housing developments built near public transit. This is reflected in 18.15.030(d)(ii) (density bonuses) and 18.15.050(b) (parking requirements). • Parking requirements were generally lowered by state law. T his is reflected throughout Section 18.15.050. • Section 18.15.080, Application Requirements, was reformatted to better reflect the differences between concessions and incentives. The following are changes made to Chapter 18.52, Parking and Loading Requi rements: • Section 18.52.040(a) now contains a reference to the varied exceptions to Section 18.52.040’s parking requirements listed in Chapter 18.15, Density Bonus. • Section 18.52.045 was retitled to remove the word “Minor” from “Minor Adjustments to Existing Parking Facilities.” The subsection describing minor adjustments remains. An additional subsection was added to reflect the changes made to state law through AB 1851, which allows substantial adjustments to parking requirements for religious instit ution affiliated housing development projects. Policy Implications: As noted above, staff is required to implement these recent changes to state law. Updating the municipal code will provide clarity for the public. Environmental Review: City of Palo Alto Page 4 The proposed ordinances revise the Palo Alto Municipal Code to comply with revisions to Government Code Section 65915 (Density Bonus) and Section 65913.5 (AB 1851). These provisions of the Government Code are already controlling with respect to the subject matter expressed in the ordinances; thus, the ordinances do not result in any substantive change to the type of development permitted in the City. Consequently, the ordinances are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant t o CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of the ordinances may have a significant effect on the environment. Attachments: Attachment A: Ordinance Amending PAMC Section 18.15 (PDF) Attachment B: Ordinance Amending Ch 18.52 Regarding Religious Use Parking (PDF) *NOT YET ADOPTED* 1 0160038_20210506_ay Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Update the Density Bonus Program in Accordance with AB 2345. The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. On September 28, 2020, the Governor approved AB 2345, which substantially revised requirements for the existing Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65400 et seq.), which requires a city to provide a developer that proposes a housing development within the jurisdictional boundaries of that city with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units, or for the donation of land within the development, if the developer agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low income, low-income, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents and meets other requirements. B. In previous years, the Governor also approved other revisions to the Density Bonus Law, including AB 1934, SB 1227, AB 2372, and AB 2753. C. The City Council is therefore updating the Density Bonus Chapter of the Zoning Code, Chapter 18.15 in Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to comply with these revisions. SECTION 2. Chapter 18.15 (Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended as follows: 18.15 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS [. . .] 18.15.010 Purpose [. . .] 18.15.020 Definitions Whenever the following terms are used in this chapter, they shall have the meaning established by this section: [. . .] *NOT YET ADOPTED* 2 0160038_20210506_ay (s) “Replace” means either of the following: (i) If any dwelling units described in Section 18.15.030(h)(i) are occupied on the date that the application is submitted to the City, the proposed housing development shall provide at least the same number of units of equivalent size to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category as those households in occupancy. For unoccupied dwelling units described in Section 18.15.030(h)(i) in a development with occupied units, the proposed housing development shall provide units of equivalent size or type, or both, to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category in the same proportion of affordability as the occupied units. All replacement calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, theses units shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years. For purposes of this subsection (s) of Section 18.15.020, “equivalent size” means that the replacement units contain at least the same total number of bedrooms as the units being replaced. (ii) If all dwelling units described in Section 18.15.030(h)(i) have been vacated or demolished within the five-year period preceding the application, the proposed housing development shall provide at least the same number of units of equivalent size, as existed at the highpoint of those units in the five-year period preceding the application to be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the same or lower income category as those persons and families in occupancy at that time, if known. If the incomes of the persons and families in occupancy at the highpoint is not known, then one-half of the required units shall be made available at affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, very low income persons and families and one-half of the required units shall be made available for rent at affordable housing costs to, and occupied by, low-income persons and families. All replacement calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years. [. . .] (v) “Lower income student” means a student who has a household income and asset level that does not exceed the level for Cal Grant A or Cal Grant B award recipients as set forth in Section 69432.7(k) of the Education Code. The eligibility of a unit for lower income students under this section shall be verified by an affidavit, award letter, or letter of eligibility provided by the institution of higher education in which the student is enrolled or by the California Student Aid Commission that the student receives or is *NOT YET ADOPTED* 3 0160038_20210506_ay eligible for financial aid, including an institutional grant or fee waiver from the college or university, the California Student Aid Commission, or the federal government. 18.15.030 Density Bonuses This section describes the density bonuses that will be provided, at the request of an applicant, when that applicant provides restricted affordable units as described below. (a) The city shall grant a 20 twenty percent (20%) density bonus when an applicant for a development of five (5) or more dwelling units seeks and agrees to construct at least any one of the following in accordance with the requirements of this Section and Government Code Section 65915: (i) At least 10 ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units of the development as restricted affordable units affordable to lower income households. Between ten and twenty percent (10-20%), For each one percent (1%) increase in the percentage of restricted lower income units, a development will receive an additional one and one- half percent (1.5%) density bonus up to thirty-five percent (35%) of the maximum residential density. For each one percent (1%) increase in the percentage of restricted lower income units exceeding twenty percent (20%), a development will receive an additional three and three-quarters percent (3.75%) density bonus up to fifty percent (50%) of the maximum residential density; or (ii) At least five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units of the development as restricted affordable units affordable to very low income households. Between five and eleven percent (5-11%), for For each one percent (1%) increase in the percentage of restricted very low income units, a development will receive an additional two and one- half percent (2.5%) density bonus up to thirty-five percent (35%) of the maximum residential density. For each one percent (1%) increase in the percentage of restricted very low income units exceeding eleven percent (11%), a development will receive an additional three and three-quarters percent (3.75%) density bonus up to fifty percent (50%) of the maximum residential density; or [. . .] (b) The city shall grant a five percent (5%) density bonus when an applicant for a development of five (5) or more additional dwelling units seeks and agrees to construct a development, in accordance with the requirements of this Section and Government Code Section 65915, in which at least 10 percent (10%) of the total dwelling units in a common interest development as defined in California Civil Code Section 4100 for of a housing development are sold to persons and families of low or moderate income households, provided that all dwelling units in the development are offered to the public for purchase. For each one percent (1%) increase in the percentage of restricted moderate income units between ten and forty percent (10-40%), a development will *NOT YET ADOPTED* 4 0160038_20210506_ay receive an additional one percent (1%) density bonus up to thirty-five percent (35%) of the maximum residential density. For each one percent (1%) increase in the percentage of total dwelling units restricted for moderate income households exceeding forty percent (40%), a development will receive an additional three and three-quarters percent (3.75%) density bonus up to fifty percent (50%) of the maximum residential density. (c) Reserved. The city shall grant a thirty-five percent (35%) density bonus when an applicant for a student housing development of five (5) or more additional dwelling units seeks and agrees to construct in accordance with the requirements of this Section and Government Code Section 65915: (i) At least twenty percent (20%) of the total dwelling units will be restricted for lower income students. (ii) For purposes of calculating a density bonus granted pursuant to this subparagraph, the term “unit” as used in this subparagraph means one rental bed and its pro rata share of the associated common area facilities. The units described in this subparagraph shall be subject to an affordability restriction of 55 years. (iii) All units will be used exclusively for undergraduate, graduate, or professional students enrolled full time at an institution of higher education accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges or the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. (iv) The applicant submits evidence that the applicant entered into an operating agreement or master lease with one or more institutions of higher education for the institution(s) to occupy all units of the student housing development with students from that institution(s). (v) The rent provided in the applicable units of the development for lower income students shall be calculated at thirty percent (30%) of sixty-five percent (65%) of the area median income for Santa Clara County for a single-room occupancy unit type. (vi) The applicant will provide priority for the applicable affordable units for lower income students experiencing homelessness. A homeless service provider, as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (e) of Section 103577 of the Health and Safety Code, or institution of higher education that has knowledge of a person’s homeless status may verify a person’s status as homeless for purposes of this subclause. (d) The city shall grant a density bonus to a development if the following criteria apply: one hundred percent (100%) of all units in the development, including total units and density bonus units, but exclusive of manager’s unit or units, are for lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, except that *NOT YET ADOPTED* 5 0160038_20210506_ay twenty percent (20%) of the units in the development, including total units and density bonus units, may be for moderate-income households, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. For rental units, rents shall be restricted as set forth in Government Code section 65915(c)(1)(B)(ii). (i) Except as otherwise provided in clause (ii), the city will grant a density bonus of eighty percent (80%) of the number of units for lower income households. (ii) If the development is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, the city will not impose any maximum controls on density. If no maximum control on density is imposed pursuant to this subparagraph, then the housing development will be eligible for four concessions or incentives, but not eligible for additional waivers or modifications to development standards, notwithstanding Section 18.15.060, except as the city may allow. (d)(e) When calculating the number of permitted density bonus units, any fractions of units shall be rounded to the next highest number. An applicant may elect to receive a density bonus that is less than the amount permitted by this section; however, the city shall not be required to similarly reduce the number of restricted affordable units required to be dedicated pursuant to this section and Government Code Section 65915(b). (e)(f) Each development is entitled to only one density bonus, which shall be selected by the applicant based on the percentage of very low restricted affordable units, lower income restricted affordable units, or moderate income restricted affordable units, or the development’s status as a senior citizen housing development or qualifying mobilehome park, or the development's provision of restricted affordable units for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans or homeless persons. Density bonuses from more than one category may not be combined. Except as provided for in 18.15.030(d), In in no case shall a development be entitled to a density bonus of more than thirty-five fifty percent (35%) (50%). (f)(g) The density bonus units shall not be included when determining the number of restricted affordable units required to qualify for a density bonus. When calculating the required number of restricted affordable units, any resulting decimal or fraction shall be rounded to the next larger integer. (g)(h) Any restricted affordable unit provided pursuant to the city’s below market rate housing program shall be included when determining the number of restricted affordable units required to qualify for a density bonus or other entitlement under this chapter. However, the payment of a housing impact or in lieu fee shall not qualify for a density bonus or other entitlement under this chapter. *NOT YET ADOPTED* 6 0160038_20210506_ay (h)(i) An applicant (or project) shall be ineligible for a density bonus or any other incentives or concessions under this chapter if the housing development is proposed on any property that includes a parcel or parcels on which rental dwelling units are or, if the dwelling units have been vacated or demolished in the five-year period preceding the application, have been subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income; subject to any other form of rent or price control through the City’s valid exercise of its police power; or occupied by lower or very low income households, unless the proposed housing development replaces those units, and either of the following applies: (i) The proposed housing development, inclusive of the units replaced pursuant to this paragrpah paragraph, contains affordable units at the percentages set forth in Section 18.15.030. (ii) Each unit in the development, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, is affordable to, and occupied by, either a lower or very low income household. (i)(j) Certain other types of development activities are specifically eligible for a density bonus pursuant to state law: (i) A development may be eligible for a density bonus in return for land donation pursuant to the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 65915(g). (ii) A condominium conversion may be eligible for a density bonus or concession pursuant to the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 65915.5. (iii) An applicant for a commercial development who has entered into an agreement for partnered housing may be eligible for a density bonus pursuant to the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 65915.7. (j)(k) As provided in Section 18.15.080(c), development proposed with rezoning to the Planned Community zone district are entitled to densities approved as part of the rezoning and shall not be entitled to a density bonus in addition to the units entitled by the rezone. (k)(l) Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, all developments must satisfy all applicable requirements of the city’s Below Market Rate Housing Program in Chapter 16.65, which may impose requirements for restricted affordable units in addition to those required to receive a density bonus or concessions. Table 1 summarizes the density bonus provisions described in this Section. // *NOT YET ADOPTED* 7 0160038_20210506_ay Table 1 Density Bonus Summary Table Restricted Affordable Units (RAUs) or Category Minimum Percentage of Restricted Affordable Units RAUs Percentage of Density Bonus Granted Additional Bonus for Each 1% Increase in Restricted Affordable Units RAUs Percentage of RAUs Required for 35% Density Bonus Percentage of Restricted Units RAUs Required for Maximum 35% 50% Density Bonus Very Low Income 5% 20% 2.50% (3.75% bonus for increases above 11% RAU) 11% 11% 15% Lower Income 10% 20% 1.50% (3.75% bonus for increases above 20% RAU) 20% 20% 24% Moderate Income 10% 5% 1% (3.75% bonus for increases above 40% RAU) 40% 40% 44% Lower Income Student Housing 20% 35% ------ ------ ------ Senior Citizen Housing 100% 20% ------ ------ ------ Qualifying Mobile Park 100% 20% ------ ------ ------ 100% Affordable Units 100% 80% (or no maximum density) ------ ------ ------ Note: A density bonus may be selected from only one category up to a maximum of 35% of the Maximum Residential Density. 18.15.040 Development Standards for Affordable Units [. . .] 18.15.050 Development Concessions and Incentives This section includes provisions for providing concessions or incentives pursuant to Government Code Section 65915. (a) By right parking incentives. Upon request by the applicant, a development that is eligible for a density bonus may provide parking as provided in this subsection (a), *NOT YET ADOPTED* 8 0160038_20210506_ay consistent with Government Code Section 65915(p), inclusive of handicapped and guest parking for persons with a disability and guests: (i) Zero to one bedroom unit: one on-site parking space; (ii) Two to three bedroom unit: two one and one-half on-site parking spaces; (iii) Four or more bedroom unit: two and one-half parking spaces. If the total number of spaces required results in a fractional number, it shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes of this subsection, this parking may be provided through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through on-street parking. (b) Additional parking incentives for transit oriented project. (i) For purposes of this subdivision, a development shall have unobstructed access to a major transit stop if a resident is able to access the major transit stop without encountering natural or constructed impediments. For purposes of this subdivision, “natural or constructed impediments” includes, but is not limited to, freeways, rivers, mountains, and bodies of water, but does not include residential structures, shopping centers, parking lots, or rails used for transit. (A) Notwithstanding paragraph subdivision (a) above, if a development includes the maximum percentage at least twenty percent (20%) of low-income or at least eleven percent (11%) of very low income units provided for in section 18.15.030(b)(a)(i) or (ii), and is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in subdivision (o) of Section 65915 of the Government Code subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development, then, upon request of the applicant, the city shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking for persons with a disability and guests, that exceeds 0.5 spaces per bedroom unit. For purposes of this subdivision, a development shall have unobstructed access to a major transit stop if a request is able to access the major transit stop without encountering natural or constructed impediments. (ii) Notwithstanding paragraph subdivision (a) above, if a development consists solely of rental units, exclusive of a manager’s unit, with an affordable housing cost to lower income families, as provided in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, then, upon the request of the applicant, the city shall not impose a vehicular parking standards if the development meets one of the following criteria ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, that exceeds the following ratios: *NOT YET ADOPTED* 9 0160038_20210506_ay (A) If the The development is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in subdivision (o) of Section 65915 of the Government Code subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development. (B) If the The development is a for-rent housing development for individuals who are 62 years of age or older that complies with Sections 51.2 and 51.3 of the Civil Code, the ratio shall not exceed 0.5 spaces per unit. The and the development shall have has either paratransit service or unobstructed access, within one-half mile, to fixed bus route service that operates at least eight times per day. (C) If the The development is either a special needs housing development, as defined in Section 51312 of the Health and Safety Code, or a supportive housing development, as defined in Section 50675.14 of the Health and Safety Code. the ratio shall not exceed 0.3 spaces per unit. The development shall have A development that is a special needs housing development must have either paratransit service or unobstructed access, within one-half mile, to fixed bus route service that operates at least eight times per day. (iii) Notwithstanding paragraphs (i) and (ii) (b)(i), (b)(ii)(A), and (b)(ii)(B), the city may impose a higher vehicular parking ratio not to exceed the ratio described in paragraph subdivision (a) if the city has conducted an area wide or citywide parking study in compliance with Government Code Section 65915(p)(7)(8). (c) Other incentives and concessions. A development is eligible for other concessions or incentives as follows: (i) One concession or incentive for a development that makes at least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units affordable to lower income households; or at least five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units affordable to very low income households; or at least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units affordable to moderate income households in a common interest development in which the units are for sale; or at least twenty percent (20%) of the total units in a student housing development for low income students, as provided for in 18.15.030(c). (ii) Two concessions or incentives for a development that makes at least twenty seventeen percent (20%)(17%) of the total dwelling units affordable to lower income households; or at least ten percent (10%) of the total dwelling units affordable to very low income households; or at least twenty percent (20%) of the total dwelling units affordable to moderate income households in a common interest development in which the units are for sale. (iii) Three concessions or incentives for a development that makes at least thirty twenty-four percent (30%)(24%) of the total dwelling units affordable to lower income *NOT YET ADOPTED* 10 0160038_20210506_ay households; or at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total dwelling units affordable to very low income households, or at least thirty percent (30%) of the total dwelling units affordable to moderate income households in a common interest development in which the units are for sale. (iv) Four concessions or incentives for a development that provides one hundred percent (100%) of the total units, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, are for lower income households, as described in Section 18.15.030, subdivision (d). Such development may additionally receive a height increase of three stories or thirty-three (33) feet. Table 2 summarizes the provisions of Concessions or Incentives described in subsection (a). Table 2 Concessions and Incentives Summary Table Target Group Restricted Affordable Units Very Low Income 5% 10% 15% Lower Income 10% 20% 17% 30% 24% Moderate Income (Common Interest Development Applicable to For-Sale Units Only) 10% 20% 30% Lower Income Student Housing 20% --- --- Maximum Incentive(s)/Concession(s) 1 2 3 Notes: 1. Concessions or incentives may be selected from only one category (very low, lower, or moderate, low income student development) 2. No concessions or incentives are available for land donation, or for senior citizen housing developments and qualifying mobilehome parks that do not contain restricted affordable units. 3. In a student development, a “unit” is defined according to 18.15.030(c)(ii). [. . .] (g) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require the provision of direct financial concessions for the development, including the provision of publicly owned land by the city or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements. 18.15.060 Waiver/Modification of Development Standards An applicant may apply for a waiver or modification of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this chapter. The developer *NOT YET ADOPTED* 11 0160038_20210506_ay must demonstrate that development standards that are requested to be waived or modified will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subsection (a) of Section 18.15.030 at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this chapter. A development that receives a waiver from any maximum controls on density pursuant to Section 18.15.030(d)(2) shall not be eligible for waivers or modifications to development standards pursuant to this Section. 18.15.070 Child Care Facilities [. . .] 18.15.080 Application Requirements An Application for a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, modification or revised parking standard shall be made as follows: (a) An All applications for a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, modification or revised parking standard shall be submitted with the first application for a discretionary permit for a development and shall be processed concurrently with those discretionary permits. The application shall be on a form prescribed by the city and shall include the following information: (i) A brief description of the proposed development, including the total number of dwelling units, restricted affordable units, and density bonus units proposed. (ii) The zoning and comprehensive plan designations and assessor’s parcel number(s) of the project site, and a description of any density bonus, concession or incentive, waiver or modification, or revised parking standard requested (iii) A vicinity map and preliminary site plan, drawn to scale, including building footprints, driveway and parking layout. (iv) Site plan showing location of market-rate units, restricted affordable units, and density bonus units within the proposed development; (v) level of affordability of the restricted affordable units and proposed method to ensure affordability; (b) If a concession or incentive is requested, the following information must be included in the application: (iv)(i) If a concession or incentive is requested, a A brief explanation as to the actual cost reduction achieved through the concession or incentive. *NOT YET ADOPTED* 12 0160038_20210506_ay (ii) For concessions and incentives that are not included within the menu of incentives/concessions set forth in subsection (c) of Section 18.15.050, the application requires the submittal of the project proforma or other comparable documentation (referred to herein as the “proforma information”) to the Director, providing evidence that the requested concessions and incentives result in identifiable and actual cost reductions. The cost of reviewing the project proforma information, including, but not limited to, the cost to the city of hiring a consultant to review the financial data, shall be borne by the applicant. The proforma information shall include all of the following items: (A) The actual cost reduction achieved through the concession; (B) Other information requested by the Planning Director. The Planning Director may require additional information as is required to evaluate the proforma information; (c) If a waiver or modification of development standards is requested, the following information must be included in the application: (v)(i) If a waiver or modification is requested, a A brief explanation of why the development standard would physically preclude the construction of the development with the density bonus, incentives, and concessions requested. (vi) Site plan showing location of market-rate units, restricted affordable units, and density bonus units within the proposed development; (vii) level of affordability of the restricted affordable units and proposed method to ensure affordability; (viii) For concessions and incentives that are not included within the menu of incentives/concessions set forth in subsection (c) of Section 18.15.050, the application requires the submittal of the project proforma or other comparable documentation (referred to herein as the “proforma information”) to the Director, providing evidence that the requested concessions and incentives result in identifiable and actual cost reductions. The cost of reviewing the project proforma information, including, but not limited to, the cost to the city of hiring a consultant to review the financial data, shall be borne by the applicant. The proforma information shall include all of the following items: (A) The actual cost reduction achieved through the concession; (B) Other information requested by the Planning Director. The Planning Director may require additional information as is required to evaluate the proforma information; (ix)(ii) If a waiver or modification of a development standard is requested, the applicant shall provide evidence Evidence that the development standard for which the waiver or modification is requested will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the development with the density bonus and concessions requested; *NOT YET ADOPTED* 13 0160038_20210506_ay (x)(d) If a density bonus or concession is requested for a land donation, the application shall show the location of the land to be dedicated, provide proof of site control, and provide evidence that all of the requirements and each of the findings included in Government Code Section 65915(g) can be made; (xi)(e) If a density bonus or concession is requested for a child care facility, the application shall show the location and square footage of the child care facilities and provide evidence that all of the requirements and each of the findings included in Government Code Section 65915(h) can be made. (xii)(f) If a density bonus or concession is requested for a condominium conversion, the applicant shall provide evidence that all of the requirements found in Government Code Section 65915.5 can be met. (b)(g) In accordance with state law, neither the granting of a concession, incentive, waiver, modification, or revised parking standard, nor the granting of a density bonus, shall be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, zoning change, variance, or other discretionary approval. (c)(h) The Planned Community (PC) zone district is intended to accommodate developments requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not attainable under other zoning districts. Because of the flexible nature of the PC zone, which determines site specific requirements including density, the chapter does not apply to this zoning district. (d)(i) This chapter implements state density bonus law. Any density bonus, incentive, concession, revised parking standard, waiver, or modification sought by an applicant shall be made pursuant to this chapter and may not be combined with similar requests under state density bonus law. 18.15.090 Review Procedures An application for a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, modification or revised parking standard shall be acted upon by the Approval Authority concurrently with the application for the first Discretionary permit. The granting of a density bonus shall not be deemed approval of the entire Project or approval of any subsequent discretionary permit. [. . .] (c) If the findings required by subsection (a) of this Section cannot be made, the Approval Authority may deny an application for a concession, incentive, waiver or *NOT YET ADOPTED* 14 0160038_20210506_ay modification only if it makes one of the following written findings, supported by substantial evidence: (i) The concession, incentive, waiver or modification is not concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions required to provide for affordable rents or affordable sales prices; or [. . .] (d) If the Approval Authority is not the City Council, any decision denying a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, modification or revised parking standard may be appealed to the City Council within fourteen days of the date of the decision. 18.15.100 Regulatory Agreement (a) AApplicants for a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, modification or revised parking standard shall enter into a regulatory agreement with the city. The terms of the draft agreement shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney and reviewed and revised as appropriate by the Director of Planning and Development Services, who shall formulate a recommendation to the Approval Authority for final approval. [. . .] SECTION 3. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b)(3) because the ordinance simply codifies existing state law and it can be seen with certainty that the minor adjustments herein will have a significant effect on the environment. Any project seeking to utilize the density bonus provisions herein will be subject to appropriate environmental review. *NOT YET ADOPTED* 15 0160038_20210506_ay SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Development Services *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 1 0160037_20210104_ay_16 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to Update Parking Requirements in Compliance with Measures Promoting the Construction of Affordable Housing. The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. On September 28, 2020, the Governor approved AB 1851, which prohibits local authorities from requiring the replacement of religious-use parking spaces that a developer of a religious institution affiliated housing development project proposes to eliminate as part of that housing development project. B. For developments receiving density bonuses, the parking requirements described in Chapter 18.52 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code may be modified or superseded by Chapter 18.15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, governing density bonuses. C. The City Council is therefore updating the parking requirements in Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to comply with AB 1851 and to make reference to Chapter 18.15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 2. Section 18.52.040 (Off-Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended as follows: 18.52.040 Off-Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements (a) Parking Requirements In each district, off-street parking, loading and bicycle facilities for each use shall be provided in accordance with Tables 1 and 2, shown in subsection (c) of this Section 18.52.040. For affordable housing developments qualifying for density bonuses under Chapter 18.15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, adjustments to parking requirements will be calculated in accordance with Chapter 18.15. The requirement for any use not specifically listed shall be determined by the director on the basis of requirements for similar uses, and on the basis of evidence of actual demand created by similar uses in Palo Alto and elsewhere, and such other traffic engineering or planning data as may be available and appropriate to the establishment of a minimum requirement. [. . .] *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 2 0160037_20210104_ay_16 SECTION 3. Section 18.52.045 (Minor Adjustments to Existing Parking Facilities) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended as follows: 18.52.045 Minor Adjustments to Existing Parking Facilities (a) The following minor adjustments may be made to existing parking facilities that are intended to remain in substantially the same form after restriping. (a)(1) Accessibility and EVSE-related equipment. For sites with existing development, the number on-site parking spaces may be reduced to the minimum extent necessary to: (1) achieve state or federally mandated accessibility requirements or (2) permit installation of electrical utility equipment required for EVSE. A maximum of 10% of the existing automobile parking stalls, or one stall, whichever is greater, may be removed pursuant to this section. The loss of a parking space is not permitted to accommodate EVSE itself. To the extent reasonably feasible, electrical equipment required for EVSE shall be placed in a location that minimizes visibility from the public right-of-way. (b)(2) Substitution of bicycle parking. For sites with existing development, where additional bicycle parking facilities cannot reasonably be located outside of the parking facility area, existing automobile parking stalls may be substituted with long- or short-term bicycle parking facilities. The maximum number of substitutions shall be two existing automobile parking spaces, or 10% of the existing automobile parking stalls, whichever is greater. A minimum of four long-term or eight short-term bicycle parking spaces is required per automobile parking space. The bicycle parking spaces are to be located in the same physical location as the automobile spaces they are replacing, which shall be near primary entries of the building on-site or in locations that meet best practices for bicycle parking facilities. (b) Substitution of religious-use parking for housing development projects. (1) This subdivision applies to religious institution affiliated housing development projects, as defined by Section 65913.6(a)(5) of the California Government Code. (2) The developer of a religious institution affiliated housing development project is not required to replace religious-use parking spaces which the developer eliminates as a part of that housing development project. Such a reduction may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the number of religious-use parking spaces that are available at the time the request is made. *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 3 0160037_20210104_ay_16 (3) Religious-use parking spaces may count towards parking spaces required for the religious institution affiliated housing development project if: (A) There is at least one space per unit, (B) The parcel is within one-half mile walking distance of public transit, or (C) There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel. SECTION 4. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 6. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b)(3) because the ordinance simply codifies existing state law and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the codification of such parking regulations will have a significant effect on the environment. Any project seeking to utilize the parking substitution provisions herein will be subject to appropriate environmental review. // // // // // // // *NOT YET ADOPTED* DRAFT 4 0160037_20210104_ay_16 SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Development Services 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Rice, Danille Sent:Monday, May 17, 2021 1:30 PM To:Council, City; Council Agenda Email Cc:Executive Leadership Team; Yang, Albert; ORG - Clerk's Office Subject:Council Agenda Consent Questions for TUESDAY May 18, Item 3 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged    Dear Mayor and Council Members:     On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find below the staff responses to  inquiries made by Mayor DuBois in regard to the Special Tuesday, May 18  Council Meeting.  Item 3: Ordinance to Update Density Bonus Code PAMC 18.15     1. Packet page 57, 18.15.050 b) ‐ the definition that says that rail is NOT an  impediment to reach transit ‐ is that state law or our local change?   The  others make sense, but if a development is across a secure rail line and not  near a station does that qualify for a transit oriented project?     The language included in the ordinance is lifted directly from state law.  As to  the particular issue about whether a secured rail line could be considered an  impediment, absent guidance about how to apply this new language, the City  will need to evaluate the circumstances of any specific application that comes  in.    2. Is there anything in our code that says other incentives are in lieu of the state  density bonuses?  That is correct right ‐ you have to choose one or the other ‐  either something like PHZ or density bonus but not both.  Should that be  clarified in these changes?    Some of our local incentive programs are set up to be mutually exclusive with  state density bonus law.  This is clearly stated in the sections for each of those  local incentives, including for example the Housing Incentive Program and the  Affordable & Workforce Housing Combining Districts.  We have the language in  those sections to offer an alternative to the state density bonus law. If a  developer finds the local alternative superior to the state density bonus law, the  latter would not be used. Alternatively, if the state density bonus law were  preferred, a developer would apply that regulation to the City’s base district  zoning standards and not in addition to other zoning incentives offered by the  City. The planned home zoning (PHZ) application process requires a legislative  change by Council and therefore the Council has broad discretion on whether to     2 approve or deny a project seeking approval through the PHZ. It is not necessary  to seek a state density bonus in conjunction with a PHZ application and the City  Council is not compelled to grant any state density bonus in conjunction with a  PHZ application.   Thank you.     Danille Rice  Executive Assistant to the City Manager  (650) 329‐2105 | danille.rice@cityofpaloalto.org   www.cityofpaloalto.org                       City of Palo Alto (ID # 12227) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/18/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 181 Addison Ave: Preliminary Parcel Map w/ Exception & Variance Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI -JUDICIAL. 181 Addison Avenue [20PLN - 00300]: Request for Review of a Preliminary Parcel Map With Exception and Variance to Subdivide one Existing lo t Into two Parcels With Less Than the Minimum 60 Foot Frontage. Environmental Assessment: Consistent with Previously Adopted Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City's Comprehensive Plan. Zoning District: R -2 (Two Family Residential) Within the SOFA II CAP From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation: The Planning and Transportation Commission and staff recommend that the City Council adopt a Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) approving the request for a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exception and Variance based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Background: The subject site is a corner lot located at a four -way intersection at Addison Avenue and Emerson Street in the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA 2). The parcel is situated in a transition area that includes residential and commercial uses. Adjacent structures are primarily single-story and two-story residences; however, there is a mixture of residential and commercial uses throughout the neighborhood. Excluding the subject property, the average lot size in the vicinity for lots zoned R-1 and R-2 is approximately 6,324 square feet (sf). The proposed project is to subdivide an existing 12,647 sf lot into two lots; Parcel A would have a lot size of 6,297 sf and Parcel B would be 6,350 sf. A parcel map with exception is required because both parcel A and B would have shorter lot frontages than the minimum length the City of Palo Alto Page 2 zone district development standards allow. A 60-foot frontage length is required by code. Lot A would have a frontage of 56 feet and Lot B would have a frontage of 56.47 feet. To subdivide property a subdivision map is required. When the subdivision map does not comply with the minimum or maximum lot areas an exception is required. Because the property is also located in SOFA 2, a variance is required. The variance requirement is set forth in section 6.010(c)(2) of the SOFA 2 plan and provides for the R-2 (two family residential) district, “the only exceptions to development standards that may be granted are variances and home improvement exceptions…” Therefore, a variance approval is required to depart from the minimum lot width development standard, where normally a parcel map with exception would suffice. The existing home and detached accessory structures would subsequently be demolished and prospectively replaced with two single-family houses, one on each of the two new parcels. Discussion: Staff reviewed the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards; a summary table is provided as Attachment C. The existing lot exceeds the zone’s maximum lot size and is the only oversized lot in the R-2 zone within the SOFA 2 plan area. Through the proposed actions the lot would be divided into two lots. The lots will comply with the zoning standards for lot area and lot depth but will not comply with the standard for lot widths. The proposed lot frontages for Parcel A and B are shorter than what is allowed by the Zoning Code but are consistent with the existing development pattern. Of the 84 properties within a 500-foot radius, less than 16.7% of the lots comply with the 60 -foot frontage standard. A visual map of the table below has been in provided in Attachment F. Lots zoned for Single-Family & Two- Family Use w/in 500’ of subject site Lots with less than 60’ width Lots with 60’ width or more Total # of lots % of Lots that comply R-1: 60’ minimum width 52 11 63 17.5 R-2: 60’ minimum width 18 3 21 14.3 Consistency with Application Findings The need for a Variance relates to the request for a preliminary parcel map with exception. In the R-2, SOFA 2, the only exceptions to development standards that may be granted are variances and home improvement exception. The application for preliminary parcel map with exception cannot be processed without a Variance application or legislative change to the SOFA 2. The recommended findings to approve the Preliminary Parcel Map with Exception and Variance are provided in Attachment B. Properties in the R-2 district are subject to the 60-foot width standard. However, not many properties zoned R-2 require a variance application to City of Palo Alto Page 3 process a preliminary parcel map with exception; except for the fourteen (14) R-2 properties located within SOFA 2. Per the existing conditions of those fourteen (14) lots, only one could be subdivided and still create two standard sized lots, that lot being the subject site. The new R-2 lots would meet the required lot area and depth , while only needing an exception to the 60- foot lot width. The variance application is unique to this site because the circumstances and outcome could not be replicated for other properties in the R-2, SOFA 2 zone. As noted above, the resulting lots would be consistent with the existing development pattern in the vi cinity. So, while variances are rare in the City, staff support the granting of this variance. The necessary findings for approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map are contained in State law and incorporated into Title 21 of the Municipal Code. Under the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council must make a series of “reverse” findings to justify approval. If the findings cannot be made, the subdivision must be approved. In particular, under Government Code Section 66474, the City shall deny a Preliminary Parcel Map if any of the findings are made. Otherwise, the City must approve the subdivision. In addition, to approve a map with Exceptions and Variance, the City Council must make a series of findings. Planning & Transportation Commission On March 31, 2021 a hearing was held with the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC).1 After a brief conversation, the Commission recommended approval of the application to the City Council, with a 7-0 vote. The PTC was able to make the required findings as documented in the attached RLUA. The Commissioners voted in support of the Variance because the subdivision reduced an oversized lot into two standard lots. The creation of two lots provides an opportunity of six new housing units thr ough the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance. Although, the applicant requests an exception from the minimum lot frontage, the Commissioners observed that the prevailing development pattern did not reflect the 60’ frontage standard. However, it was noted that in the future, if a majority of lots are not consistent with the development standard(s) it may be a better practice to fix the development standard(s); instead of taking a non-conformity and making it less non-conforming. Additionally, it was noted that the site is in the R-2 zone, which allows two-family residential development, under the same ownership, on lots of a certain size. The applicant was asked to consider developing the property to its full potential, by creating two single-family homes on each resulting lot. One member of the public spoke to this agenda item at the PTC meeting and conveyed support of the application. Policy Implications: City of Palo Alto Page 4 This project has no major policy implications as the project will bring an oversized lot into greater compliance with the Zoning Code. Staff reviewed the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards, reflected in a summary table (Attachment C). The subject site has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Two-Family Residential and is consitent with the goals and polices of SOFA 2. The project is expected to increase the city’s housing stock by at least one unit. Stakeholder Engagement: The PAMC requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local newspaper of general circulation and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance of a public hearing. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on April 30, 2021, which is 18 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 26, 2021, which is 21 days in advance of the meeting. No public comments were received at the time of report publication. Environmental Review: The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, staff found the project to be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and therefore covered under the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report. The SOFA 2 coordinated area plan (CAP) implements the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and provides more detailed programs and policies. The proposed project would allow for one or two dwelling units under the same ownership on each parcel, while preserving the essential neighborhood character. The project would be in conformance with the SOFA 2 CAP, and thereby in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX) Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment D: DPR Form (Historic) (PDF) Attachment E: 181 Addison Ave with 500 foot buffer (PDF) Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) Legend Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Palo Alto [-7 Assessment Parcel Outside Palo Alto abc Road Centerline Small Text (TC) Curb Face (RF) ,.,0"" '" Pavement Edge (RF) abc Address Label (AP) 0 Current Features 12 0-028 7 r y 4 The City. of Palo Alto Attachment A Vicinity Map 181 Addison Avenue This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 0' 30' dcondit, 2021-01-13 14:09:22 Assessor Parcels (11cc-maps\Encompass Admin\Meta\View.mdb) This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. 01989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto 1 ACTION NO. XXXX-XX DRAFT RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 181 ADDISON AVE: PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP WITH EXCEPTION & VARIANCE 20PLN-00300 (ADDISON PROPERTY, LLC, Property Owner) At its meeting on___________, 2021, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Preliminary Parcel Map for the development of a two-lot subdivision project with exceptions and Variance, making the following findings, determinations and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On December 21, 2020, Addison Property, LLC applied for a Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions for the development of a Two-lot subdivision project (“The Project”). B. The project site is comprised of one lot (APN No. 120-28-088) of approximately 12,647 square feet. The site contains one residential structure. Single -family residential land uses are located adjacent to the lot to the north and west. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for The Project has determined that The Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and potential secondary effects that can be expected have been assessed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report. The project provides opportunity for single-family housing in an area of Palo Alto zoned for the two-family residential use, also known as the R-2. The R-2 district is intended to allow a second dwelling unit under the same ownership as the initial dwelling unit on appropriate sites, in areas designated for single-family use by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, under regulations that preserve the essential character of single-family use. Further, the project provides an opportunity for additional housing, consistent with the City’s Housing Element. SECTION 3. Preliminary Parcel Map Findings. 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: The site is located within the South of Forest Area (SOFA 2) Coordinated Area Plan and is consistent with the provisions of both the Comprehensive Plan and SOFA 2 , as noted below. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: The map is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: 2 A. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. B. Policy L-1.6 Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change and development to benefit the community. C. Policy L-2.4 Use a variety of strategies to stimulate housing, near retail, employment, and transit, in a way that connects to and enhances existing neighborhoods. D. Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed -use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. E. Policy H1.4: Ensure that new developments provide appropriate transitions from higher density development to single-family and low-density residential districts to preserve neighborhood character F. Goal H2: Support the construction of housing near schools, transit, parks, shopping, employment and cultural institutions. The map is consistent with the following SOFA 2 policies: A. Policy L-2: Enhance desirable characteristics and uses by using planning and development standards to create opportunities for n eighborhood development. Encourage a compatible transition from the residential neighborhoods to the downtown. B. Policy L-6: Enhance the vitality and livability of the South of Forest Area by allowing a mixture of residential and neighborhood serving commercial land uses. C. Policy H-1: Within SOFA, Phases 1 and 2, provide for a total of 300 residential units and promote the retention of existing housing units and encourage the development of new housing units throughout the South of Forest Area. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: The site is physically suitable for single-family residential development, as demonstrated by the following: The site currently contains one single-family home and detached garage, in a residential neighborhood. The proposed parcel map removes the existing residence and garage that are located across the proposed parcel A and parcel B; and divides the existing oversized lot into two new standard lots for future single-family development. The subdivision creates an opportunity for neighborhood development th at is reflective of the existing neighborhood pattern and use; additionally, SOFA 2 will gain a new housing opportunity which is consistent with the policies established in the SOFA 2, as noted above. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development, which is consistent with neighboring parcels, as noted in Section 4, finding 2, of this Record of Land Use Action. 3 Although the proposal for the site creates two R-2 lots with widths that do not meet the minimum width standards per the R-2 development standards, the proposed lots are more reflective of the existing neighborhood development pattern and are compliant with the standards of the zoning code except for lot frontage; which is an allowed exception under PAMC 21.04.030(b)(17). Currently, the site as existing exceeds the maximum lot size (i.e. maximum lot size of 11,999 sf) per the development standards in the R-2 zoning. The subdivision creates an opportunity for an additional single-family lot in the R-2 zone. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: The minor subdivision will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat. The project site has been fully urbanized/developed and is centrally located within the SOFA 2 CAP. There is no recognized sensitive wildlife or habitat in the project vicinity. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: The creation of two individual parcels will not cause serious public health problems, as it does not substantially affect the existing conditions and overall function of the site as a low density residential property. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. There are no easements across the current parcel. The parcel map does not propose nor require any easements. SECTION 4. Exception Findings 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property. The subject property is nearly twice the width of many of the other properties up and down the block including all adjoining properties zoned for residential. The SOFA 2 CAP, where the 4 subject property is located, is comprised of varied lot sizes and does not follow a standard pattern. It is however common in the vicinity of the subject property to find lots that do not meet the required minimum 60-foot lot width and are nearly the same width (55 feet) as would result from the proposed subdivision. (See 181 Addison Map with 500’ radius, Attachment F) 2. The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. In these circumstances an exception is necessary to preserve the petitioner’s ability to enjoy rights similar to those of neighboring property owners. The existing lots adjacent to the subject property do not meet the 60-foot standard lot width established for the R-2 zone district. Many of the lots within 500 feet of the subject property are 50 feet wide in the R-1 and R-2 districts. The proposed lots would be a minimum 56 feet wide and would have lot widths that closer comply with the development standards than many of neighboring parcels. Additionally, the lot is currently non-conforming in terms of lot size, in that it exceeds the maximum R-2 lot size of 11,999 square feet. The subdivision would create two conforming lots in terms of lot size and lot depth with frontages that integrate with the existing development pattern. Lots zoned for Single- Family & Two-Family Use w/in 500’ of subject site Lots with 50’ width Lots with 60’ width or more Lots that range from 33.3’ – 56.5’ width Total # of lots Combined R-1 & R-2 lots 51 14 19 84 Percentage of Lots 60.7% 16.7% 22.6% 100% 3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. The division of this single parcel into two separate parcels will not have adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity. The addition of a single parcel to the street will not negatively impact traffic and the resulting lot widths will be sufficien t to provide ample width for standard development of single-family houses without the need for exceptions. 4. The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law. The granting of the exception is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive plan as well as the spirit of the law. Policy L-1.6 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan states “Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change and development to benefit the community.” The subdivision of this parcel creates only one new single-family residential lot within an established neighborhood that already receives city 5 services. The new lot therefore would not diminish the quality of City services or diminish the capacity of infrastructure or transportation facilities. The subdivision of this parcel only serves to add further consistency to the existing lot pattern thus preserving the character of the neighborhood and provides an additional housing opportunity in a residential district. The lot as it is currently situated exceeds the 11,999 square foot maximum lot size for R-2 zoned properties by approximately 657 square feet. The subdivision would allow the creation of two smaller lots that are more consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.10.040. Policy L-1.3 states “Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern”. The division of the lot will allow for the construction of two modestly sized houses more consistent with the existing homes in the neighborhood rather than the construction of one large house that would be out of scale with the adjacent residences. The two smaller houses would also be more affordable than the one larger home and allow for an additional housing unit in Palo Alto. SECTION 5. Variance Findings 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in Title 18 substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. The project site at 181 Addison is zoned R-2 and is located within the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA 2 CAP). Per 6.010(c)(2) of SOFA CAP 2 ,” in the R-2 district, the only exceptions to development standards that may be granted are variances and home improvement exceptions…” Therefore, a variance is required to request an exception from the development standard, in this case less than a 60 foot width. The subject site is the only oversized lot in the R-2, SOFA 2 zone. Adjacent similarly zoned properties within 500’ of the subject site that are subject to the same 60-foot width standard: Lots zoned for Single-Family & Two-Family Use w/in 500’ of subject site Lots with less than 60’ width Lots with 60’ width or more Total # of lots % of Lots that comply R-1: 60’ minimum width 52 11 63 17.5 R-2: 60’ minimum width 18 3 21 14.3 Combined R-1 & R-2 lots 70 14 84 16.7 Based on the facts above, a strict application of the 60-foot width would deprive the site of the opportunity to create a standard lot size that is similar to the existing development 6 pattern in the vicinity. As indicated in the table above, only 16.7% of the total lots comply with the 60’ width standard within a 500’ radius. 2. The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Properties in the R-2 district are subject to the 60-foot width standard. However, not many properties zoned R- 2 need to process a variance application to process a preliminary parcel map with exception; except for the 14 R-2 properties located within SOFA CAP 2. Per the existing conditions of those 14 lots, only one could be subdivided and still create two lots with a standard lot area, that lot being the subject site. The new R-2 lots would meet the required lot area, and depth while only needing an exception to the 60-foot lot width. The variance application is unique to this site because the circumstances and outcome could not be replicated for other properties in the R-2, SOFA 2 zone. As noted above, the resulting lots would be consistent with the existing development pattern in the vicinity of the site. 3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 (Zoning). The project proposes a variance application to implement the project, to meet the requirements of the SOFA 2 guidelines when requesting to deviate away from the development standard. The project as proposed complies with all Zoning Ordinance requirements other than the exception from lot width for which a Parcel map with exception is sought. Furthermore, the proposed project does not conflict with the promotion and protection of public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience or general welfare. In light of these facts, the proposed project is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18). The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan does not contain any width requirements, so the variance does not include an exception to the Comprehensive Plan. An important goal of the Palo Alto 7 Comprehensive Plan is to encourage more housing opportunities . Further, the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as it will promote the goals and policies, as noted above in the Preliminary Parcel Map findings. Additionally, the SOFA 2 guidelines act as an extension of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Policy H-1 states that “within SOFA, Phases 1 and 2, provide for a total of 300 residential units and promote the retention of existing housing units and encourage the development of new housing units throughout the SOFA areas”. 4. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The granting of the application will facilitate the development of two standard lots in the R-2 district: A. That are consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan, housing element & SOFA 2. B. That preserves the health and welfare of the existing neighborhood character C. Is reflective of the typical lot size in the vicinity D. Granting of the subdivision fosters consistent development pattern within the neighborhood in terms of mass & scale for a future residential development SECTION 6. Preliminary Parcel Map Approval Granted. Preliminary Parcel Map approval is granted by the City Council under PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of this Record. SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval. Planning Division 1. PROJECT PLANS. The Preliminary Parcel Map with exception submitted for review and approval by the Director shall be in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map prepared by Louis Wade Hammond “Two-Parcel Preliminary Parcel Map Lot 33-36, D Maps 119”, consisting of 3 pages, uploaded to Accela Citizen Access on February 3, 2021, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of this approval. A copy of this plan i s on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division. 2. PARCEL MAP COVER PAGE. At such time as the Parcel Map is filed, the cover page shall include the name and title of the Director of Planning and Development Servi ces. 3. PARCEL MAP EXPIRATION. A Parcel Map, in conformance with the approved Preliminary 8 Parcel Map with exception, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall be filed with the Pla nning Division and the Public Works Engineering Division within two (2) years of the Preliminary Parcel Map with exception approval date. The time period for a project may be extended once for an additional year by the Director of Planning if submitted pr ior to the expiration date. The resultant parcel map must be recorded prior to any building permit issuance. 4. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 5. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated to be $82,060.82 for the subdivision shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 6. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 7. Any new two-story construction on the lots will require review under the City’s Individual Review process. 8. The applicant shall confirm the location all existing features of the site, including protected and non-protected trees, wells, structures, utilities, and easements to the satisfaction of Public Works, the Planning Division, and any other agency that would have an interest in those features. 9 9. Development Impact fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance, shall be paid to the City of Palo Alto prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the second of the two houses that could be built on the two parcels. Building Division 10. No property line crossing any building is allowed. 11. All buildings shall be removed/demolished prior to approval of the Parcel Map. 12. Obtain a deconstruction for removal of buildings prior to building permit. Public Works Engineering Department 13. Provide electronic copies of the referenced documents to Public Works. This includes the records of survey, maps, preliminary title report, parcel map, closure calculations etc. 14. Provide a Preliminary Title Report that is current (within 3 months). 15. If applicable to this map, provide a Beneficiary or Trustee and Acknowledgement statement on the map. 16. The Parcel Map shall include CITY ENGINEER STATEMENT, CITY SURVEYOR STATEMENT and DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT STATEMENT. Current City Engineer is Bradley Eggleston RCE C72158. Surveyor’s Statement is TBD. 17. The City Engineer bulletin shall read as follows: I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE WITHIN MAP; THAT ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND ANY LOCAL ORDINANCE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF THE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. THE SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IT APPEARED ON THE PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP AND ANY APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF. 18. The City of Palo Alto does not currently have a City Surveyor. We have retained the services of a consultant surveyor to review and provide approval on behalf of the City. The consultant surveyor will be reviewing, signing and stamping the Parcel Map associated with your project. 19. In an effort to employ the services of the consultant surveyor, and as part of the City’s cost recovery measures, the applicant is required to provide payment to cover the cost of the consultant surveyor’s review. Our intent is to forward your Parcel Map to the consultant surveyor for an initial preliminary review of the documents. The consultant surveyor will then 10 provide a review cost amount based on the complexity of the project and the information shown on the document. We will share this information with you once we receive it and ask that you return a copy acknowledging the amount. You may then provide a check for this amount as payment for the review cost. The City must receive payment prior to beginning the final review process. Scope and Fee Letter from the consultant surveyor will be provided separately. 20. Once all reviewing departments (including third party surveyor) have approved the Parcel Map, please submit wet signed and stamped mylar copy of the Parcel Map to Public Works Engineering prior to recordation of Parcel Map. Map shall be signed by Owner, Trustee, Notary and Surveyor prior to formal submittal. 21. Provide the electronic CAD file for the Map. Detail format of electronic submittal to be provided prior to recordation of Parcel Map. 22. Any existing building(s) to be demolished will need to be demolished prior to recordation of Parcel Map. 23. Prior to building permit and grading and excavation permit issuance, the Parcel Map shall be recorded with County Recorder. A conformed mylar copy shall be submitted to Pub lic Works Engineering. Utilities Water Gas Wastewater Department 24. Any water service, gas service, or wastewater lateral not in use must be disconnected and abandoned per the latest CPAU standards. 25. Each house shall have its own water and gas meter. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service, and wastewater lateral connection. 26. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility services as necessary to handle anticipated new demands and meet current standards. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility services, meters, and sewer laterals. Utilities Electrical Department 27. Applicant shall provide a 10'x10' PUE between the two new lots. 28. Each new lot shall have one electric service per parcel. 29. Applicant shall pay to relocated or upgrade any of existing electric utilities equipment (such 11 as underground box) should they happen to be on the newly proposed driveway. SECTION 9. Term of Approval. All conditions of approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Parcel Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]). Unless a Parcel Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Preliminary Parcel Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Preliminary Parcel Map shall expire, and all proceedings shall terminate. The Director of Planning and Development Services may approve one extension prior to expiration of the Preliminary Parcel Map, consistent with the provisions of PAMC Title 21. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Development Services APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Louis Wade Hammond “Two-Parcel Preliminary Parcel Map Lot 33-36, D Maps 119”, consisting of 3 pages, uploaded to Accela Citizen Access on February 3, 2021. ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 181 Addison Avenue, 20PLN-00300 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.10 (R-2 DISTRICT & SOFA 2 Cap) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Parcel A Proposed Parcel B Minimum/Maximum Site Area 6,000-11,999 sf area 1 lot, approximately 12,647 sf (Noncomplying) 6,297 sf 6,350 sf Minimum Width 60-foot width 112.47 feet wide 56 feet wide 56.47 feet wide Minimum Depth 100-foot depth 112.46 feet deep 112.44 feet deep 112.46 feet deep DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________ NRHP Status Code 6Z Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________ Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________ Page 1 of 12 Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) 181 Addison Avenue P1. Other Identifier: 948 Emerson Street *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County Santa Clara *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Palo Alto, CA Date 2015 *c. Address 181 Addison Avenue City Palo Alto Zip 94301 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number 120-28-088 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) 181 Addison Avenue is a one-and-a-half-story residential building designed in a Vernacular bungalow style (see P5a. Photo). The building is located in the University South neighborhood of Palo Alto. The building appears to have been constructed by 1903, as the address appears in the January 1904 Palo Alto city directory, which included information from 1903. Furthermore, the building first appears in the 1904 Sanborn fire insurance map. 181 Addison Avenue is located on a square 112.5-foot by 112.5-foot lot at the southwest corner of Addison Avenue and Emerson Street. The subject building is located at the east corner of the property with a narrow setback from the sidewalk along Addison Avenue and Emmerson Street. The generally rectangular-plan wood-frame building has hipped roof clad in asphalt shingles. The roof features overhanging eaves, which have a slight flare at the edge, on all facades with a simple wood soffit and a wood frieze board below the eaves. The residence sits on a concrete foundation and is clad in false bevel wood siding with a molded wood basecourse. An interior brick chimney is located toward the west end of the residence. Typical windows are double-hung wood windows with ogee lugs, some of which have upper sashes decorative double ogee-pattern or semi-circle pattern divided-lites. Typical windows are surrounded by simple, wide wood casing and a wood sill. A number of the windows are covered by non-original screens. Five non-original, operable awning skylights are located on the upper slopes of the roof; three on the southwest facing slope, and one each on the northwest and southeast facing slopes of the roo f. (See Continuation Sheet, page 2) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Property *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Photo: (view and date) Primary façade, looking northeast. January 8, 2019. *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both 1903, 1904 Palo Alto city directory and 1904 Sanborn map. *P7. Owner and Address: Ellison Family 181 Addison Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 *P8. Recorded by: Page & Turnbull, Inc. 417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 *P9. Date Recorded: January 23, 2019 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive survey *P11. Report Citation: None *Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (list) P5a. Photo State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 2 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 181 Addison Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 23, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *P3a. Description (Continued): 181 Addison Avenue has an unusual orientation with the primary (southwest) façade facing toward the yard of the corner lot, rather than fronting one of the streets (Figure 1). At the north end of the primary façade is an undivided typical window. A projecting bay with a bay window is capped by a hipped roof with typical features (Figure 2). The central bay window features double ogee muntins, and flanking typical windows with single ogee muntins. The frieze board above the bay window follows the line of the hipped roof, rather than the window bay. To the south of the projecting bay is the recessed open entry porch, which is covered by the main roof (Figure 3). Accessed via wood steps, the wood porch is enclosed by a low wall clad in false bevel siding. A removable metal wheelchair ramp and wood railing are located at the entry stairs. The porch features a wood soffit ceiling with a central, mounted fan. Horizontal, fixed wood windows with double semi-circle muntins are located on the southeast-facing wall of the recessed entry porch and to the south (right) of the main entry door. The main entry door is a fully-glazed wood door with divided-lites. To the north (left) of the main door is a typical window with a double ogee muntins. A secondary entrance is located on the northwest-facing wall of the recessed entry porch and features a non-original wood panel door with a fanlight and a screen door (Figure 4). Figure 1: Aerial view of 181 Addison Avenue (indicated by orange dashed line), oriented toward driveway to the southwest. Source: Google Maps, 2019. Figure 2: Primary (southwest) façade entrance, looking north. Figure 3: Recessed entry porch on the primary façade, featuring the primary entrance door (center) and secondary entrance (right), looking northeast. Figure 4: Secondary, replacement entry door, looking east. The southeast façade faces Addison Street, but is largely obscured from the public right-of-way by a wood fence and redwood trees (Figure 5). The southeast façade features two typical windows with double-ogee patterns at either end of the façade, and a central horizontal, casement wood window with a double-ogee divided-lite pattern. The northeast façade faces Emerson Street and features a central, hipped-roof dormer with two single-lite, wood-frame awning windows (Figure 6). From east (left) to west (right), the northeast façade features a fixed wood window with a dou ble semi-circle State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 3 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 181 Addison Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 23, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L muntins; a typical window with a non-original stained-glass lower-sash; a typical window with a double ogee muntins; a horizontal casement window with stained glass; and a typical undivided window. Figure 5: Southeast façade, looking northwest. Figure 6: Northeast façade, looking southwest. The northwest façade faces a small grass lawn (Figure 7). Two typical windows are located at the north end of the northwest façade. The south end of the façade has, from north (left) to south (right), typical window with a double-ogee pattern, a wood panel door, and a typical window. The door is accessed via an elevated wood deck (Figure 8). Figure 7: Northwest façade, looking southeast. Figure 8: Wood deck on northwest façade, looking south. A detached garage is located to the west of the residence, along the northwest property-line (Figure 9). The garage features a gabled roof clad in asphalt shingles and has exposed rafter tails. The garage is clad in wood clapboard siding and features one southeast-facing paneled roll-up garage door. Four-lite wood windows are located on the two side façades of the garage. South of the garage, in the west corner of the property, is a detached double-height wood carport covered by a low-pitch gabled roof (Figure 10). The height of the carport appears to be sized to accommodate commercial vehicles or an RV. The garage and carport are accessed via a concrete driveway which extends to Addison Street. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 4 of 12 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 181 Addison Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 23, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 9: Detached garage, looking west. Figure 10: Detached, double-height carport, looking northwest. The subject property is surrounded by a wood fence, except at the southwest property -line where it is enclosed by the concrete wall of the adjacent commercial property. A sliding wood gate provides access to the concrete driveway and a painted wood gate with a gabled-roof portico provides pedestrian access off of Addison Street (Figure 11). Redwood trees are located throughout the property, particularly at the edges of the property and adjacent the carport. An asphalt parking area is located at the north corner of the property, off of Emerson Street. A memorial statue within wood pergola structure, dedicated to Earl M. Ellison, Sr., is located in the grass lawn northwest of the residence (Figure 12). Figure 11: Painted wood gate providing access to the subject property off of Addison Street, looking northwest. Figure 12: Memorial statue dedicated to Earl M. Ellison, Sr., looking north. DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________ BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 5 of 12 *NRHP Status Code 6Z *Resource Name or # 181 Addison Avenue B1. Historic Name: 181 Addison Avenue; 948 Emerson Street B2. Common Name: 181 Addison Avenue B3. Original Use: Residential Building B4. Present Use: Residential Building *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular Bungalow *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) 181 Addison Avenue was constructed in 1903, based upon Palo Alto city directories and the 1904 Sanborn fire insurance map. The single-family residence appears on the 1904 Sanborn map as part of a larger property stretching down Emerson Street, including a hen house, chicken brooder and incubator, and another detached ancillary building (Figure 13). The footprint of house appears to have been unaltered since initial construction, as the 1904 Sanborn map illustrates a one-story, largely rectangular plan building with a projecting bay and recessed, covered porch on the southwest façade. Although the footprint of the residence was unaltered, city directories and the Small File Assessment No. 7-8 on file at Palo Alto Development Services indicate that the building was converted to a duplex after 1907. The second unit appears to have been addressed 948 Emerson Street. In the subsequent 1908 Sanborn map, the ancillary building adjacent the main residence has been expanded and converted to a dwelling addressed 944 Emerson Street (Figure 14). A building permit index record on file at the Palo Alto Historical As sociation notes an addition to a garage at 181 Addison Avenue by J. W. Kelly in April 1923.1 By 1924, the agricultural buildings and the dwelling at 944 Emerson Street were demolished and replaced with two small residences, and an automobile garage had bee n constructed to the southwest of the subject residence (Figure 15). A 1941 aerial photograph of the area illustrates that the detached garage has a h ipped roof, and the garage also appears in the 1949 Sanborn map (Figure 16 and Figure 17). A 1965 aerial photograph shows that the property was being used for vehicle storage by the owners’ business, Ellison Towing. (See Continuation Sheet, page 6) *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: Detached garage, detached carport, redwood trees, wood fence. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown *B10. Significance: Theme N/A Area N/A Period of Significance N/A Property Type N/A Applicable Criteria N/A Historic Context: Palo Alto History The earliest known settlement of the Palo Alto area was by the Ohlone people. The region was colonized in 1769 as part of Alta California. The Spanish and Mexican governments carved the area into large ranchos which contained portions of land that became Palo Alto including Rancho Corte Madera, Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas, Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito, and Rancho Riconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito.2 (See Continuation Sheet, page 8) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP4. Ancillary Building: Detached garage HP4. Ancillary Building: Detached carport HP30. Trees/Vegetation HP46. Walls/gates/fences *B12. References: See Footnotes B13. Remarks: None *B14. Evaluator: Hannah Simonson, Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date of Evaluation: January 23, 2019 1 Building permit index record on file at Palo Alto Historical Association, citing Palo Alto Times, May 1, 1923. 2 Ward Winslow and Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History, (Palo Alto, CA: Palo Alto Historical Association, 1993), 12-17. Source: City of Palo Alto, Online Parcel Reports, 2018. Edited by Page & Turnbull. (This space reserved for official comments.) State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 6 of 12 Resource Name or # 181 Addison Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 23, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *B6. Construction History (Continued): Figure 13: 1904 Sanborn fire insurance survey map. Subject property outlined in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 14: 1908 Sanborn fire insurance survey map. Subject property outlined in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 15: 1924 Sanborn fire insurance survey map. Subject property outlined in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 16: 1941 aerial photograph of University South. Subject property outlined in orange. Source: Flight C- 7065, Frame 44, Fairchild Aerial Surveys, April 16, 1941. UC Santa Barbara Aerial Photography FrameFinder. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 7 of 12 Resource Name or # 181 Addison Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 23, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 17: 1949 Sanborn fire insurance survey map. Subject property outlined in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 18: 1965 aerial photograph of University South. Subject property outlined in orange. Source: Flight CAS- 65-130, Frame 2-173, Cartwright Aerial Surveys, April 30, 1965. UC Santa Barbara Aerial Photography FrameFinder. Table 1 below lists building permit applications and property assessment record information reviewed at Palo Alto Development Services. Known alterations include reroofing, a new concrete foundation replacing the original brick foundation, an interior kitchen and bathroom remodel, and the construction of the tall detached carport permitted in 2004. A 2001 complaint on file at Palo A lto Development Services notes a building exceeding 120 square feet and the maximum 12 -foot height built without permits, indicating that the carport may have been built prior to 2001 and permitted retroactively. The existing detached garage has a gable d, rather than hipped, roof and is in a different location than the historic garage depicted in Sanborn maps between 1924 to 1949, indicating that the extant garage was built later. Table 1. Construction History for 181 Addison Avenue Permit # Date Owner Architect/Contractor Description Small File Assessment 7-8 Not indicated on form Edith H. Zimmerman Not listed Describes residential building as built in 1905. J&K-2565 Not legible Buzz Ellison Buzz Ellison Fence permit – details not legible. 05-2764 10/3/1965 Don Ellison Shelton Roofing Company Tear off old [wood shake] roof, install plywood, install new composition roof. H-2921 11/18/1977 Buzz Ellison Heating Permit 948 Emerson. B-84-931 10/2/1981 Don Ellison Still-Water Enterprises Kitchen/bath remodel. B-82-299 4/21/1982 Don Ellison Still-Water Enterprises New foundation. Termite work. R-82-282 6/18/1982 Don Ellison Still-Water Enterprises Reroof cedar shingles. E82-854 11/22/1982 Don Ellison Still-Water Enterprises No description (electrical permit). 98-374-P 2/23/1998 Don Ellison John F. Dahl Plumbing & Heating No description (plumbing permit). 98-2595-M 8/27/1998 Don Ellison John F. Dahl Plumbing & Heating No description (mechanical permit). 04640 3/23/2004 Don Ellison G. W. Construction New carport. 400 square feet. A building permit index record on file at the Palo Alto Historical Association notes a 1908 alteration valued at 600 dollars for resident Sarah Louise Kimball, but does not specify the nature of the work completed.3 Other alterations that are not represented by the available building permit applications, but are indicated by visual inspection and/or the 2001 Historic Resource Board staff report prepared in consultation with owner Don Ellison, include the replacement of the original secondary entry door off the entry 3 Building permit index record for 181 Addison Avenue on file at Palo Alto Historical Society, references Palo Alto Times, January 3, 1908. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 8 of 12 Resource Name or # 181 Addison Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 23, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L porch; the replacement of the entry door on the northwest façade; the installation of five operable skylights during a conversion of the attic space to an artist’s studio in 1986; the replacement of a fixed window on the northeast façade with a stained glass window; and the infill of a non-original entry door on the northeast elevation which was then clad in false bevel siding to match the historic wall siding.4 Owner Don Ellison converted the subject residence at 181 Addison Avenue back to a single -family layout, from the non-original duplex layout, at an unknown date. *B10. Significance (Continued): Historic Context (Continued): These land grants were honored in the cession of California to the United States, but parcels were subdivided and sold throughout the nineteenth century. The current city of Palo Alto contains the former township of Mayfield, which was located just southw est of Alma Street. In 1882, railroad magnate and California politician Leland Stanford purchased 1,000 acres adjacent to Mayfield to add to his larger estate. Stanford’s vast holdings became known as the Palo Alto Stock Farm. On March 9, 1885, Stanford Universit y was founded through an endowment act by the California Assembly and Senate on Palo Alto Stock Farm land. In 1894, Stanford founded the town of Palo Alto with aid from his friend Timothy Hopkins of the Southern Pacific Railroad , who purchased and subdivided 740 acres of private land.5 Known as both the Hopkins Tract and University Park, it was bounded by the San Francisquito Creek to the north and the railroad tracks and Stanford University campus to the south. A new train stop was cre ated along University Avenue and the new town flourished serving the university. In its early years, Palo Alto was a temperance town where no alcohol could be served. The residents were mostly middle and working class, with a pocket of University professors clustered in the neighborhood deemed Professorville. The development of a local streetcar in 1906 and the interurban railway to San Jose in 1910 facilitated access to jobs outside the city and to the University, encouraging more people to move to Palo A lto.6 In July 1925, Mayfield was officially annexed and consolidated into the city of Palo Alto.7 Like the rest of the nation, Palo Alto suffered through the Great Depression in the 1930s and did not grow substantially. Wor ld War II brought an influx of military personnel and their families to the Peninsula; accordingly, Palo Alto saw rapid growth following the war as many families who had been stationed on the Peninsula by the military or who worked in associated industries chose to stay. Palo Alto’s population more than doubled from 16,774 in 1940 t o 33,753 in 1953.8 Palo Alto’s city center greatly expanded in the late 1940s and 1950s, gathering parcels that would house new offices and light industrial uses and lead the city away from its “college town” reputation.9 Palo Alto annexed a vast area of mostly undeveloped land between 1959 and 1968. This area, west of the Foothill Expressway, has remained protected open space. Small annexations continued into the 1970s, contributing to the discontinuous footprint of the city today. Palo Alto remains clos ely tied to Stanford University; it is the largest employer in the city. The technology industry dominates other sectors of business, as is the ca se with most cities within Silicon Valley. Palo Alto consciously maintains its high proportion of open space t o development and the suburban feeling and scale of its architecture. University South Neighborhood The current University South neighborhood was located in the southern portion of the original University Park track platted b y Timothy Hopkins. It was the core part of the early city, along with today’s Downtown North neighborhood (located northwest of University Avenue, the main commercial corridor within the original core of Palo Alto). The neighborhood contains the residen tial and commercial areas that lay southeast of University Avenue excluding Professorville, the residential neighborhood closely associated with early Stanford faculty members and their families. As a result, the neighborhood is U -shaped, bounded by University Avenue at the northwest, Alma Street and the railroad tracks at the south, and Middlefield Road at the northeast. The southeast boundary follows Embarcadero Road but steps northwest to Addison Avenue, so as to exclude Professorville. The 1895 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map illustrates that stores were located along University Avenue, and were particularly concentrated at its southwestern end, where a large lumberyard stood near the railroad. Residences were scattered along the street just east and west of University Avenue on Hamilton and Lytton Avenues. A few churches, hotels, and boarding houses also stood among many vacant lots. Contemporary newspapers called the homes that housed artisans and merchants in this area “neat cottages”—which stood in contrast to the houses occupied by Stanford faculty members, located to the southeast in what is today 4 “181 Addison Avenue [01-HRB-04],” Historic Resources Board Staff Report, prepared by Dennis Backland, Historic Preservation Planner for the Historic Resources Board (July 18, 2001). 5 “Comprehensive Plan,” City of Palo Alto, section L-3. 6 Michael Corbett and Denise Bradley, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update: Final Survey Report,” Dames & Moore, 1-4. 7 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora. 8 “Depression, War, and the Population Boom,” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health, website accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html. 9 “Comprehensive Plan,” section L-4. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 9 of 12 Resource Name or # 181 Addison Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 23, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L the Professorville neighborhood.10 Some grander homes for more affluent residents were sprinkled throughout the current -day University South neighborhood. By 1901, Palo Alto had grown beyond the original core depicted on the 1895 map. The 1901 Sanborn map shows that houses were filling in the lots on the blocks around the railroad while scattered residential development extended up to and beyond Middlefield Road. Additional institutions had been built in the area, including a public school and high school. Ownership and Occupancy Summary The following Table 2 details the available ownership and occupancy history for 181 Addison Avenue, and is based upon listings in available City of Palo Alto city directories published between 1904 and 1978 and building permit applications on file at Palo Alto Development Services. Table 2. Occupant History of 181 Addison Avenue Date(s) Occupant(s)/Owner(s), if known Occupation (if listed) 1903-1907 Sarah Louise Kimball Mary Ann Kimball (mother) M. Alice Kimball (sister) Owner: Sarah Louise Kimball Stenographer, Law Office 1908-1910 C. E. Carson Mrs. C. E. Carson Marion Vroom Carson Merwin Bishop Carson Secretary Student, Stanford University Student, Stanford University 1911-1913 Not available 1914-1919 John Fortune Carrie B. Fortune Fred A. Fortune Marie Fortune Retired Conductor 1920-1926 Carrie B. Fortune Dewey Fortune George W. Fortune Grace Fortune Housewife Machinist 1927 Not available 1928-1941 Carrie B. Fortune George W. Fortune George Melton11 Grace Melton Housewife Laborer 1942 Vacant 1944-1946 Herbert W. Beck Mary M. Beck Pharmacist, Young Drug Co. 1947 Not available 1948 Robert F. & Mary L. Vincent 1949 Not available 1950 Robert P. & Rosemary M. Browder 1951-1952 Not available 1953 Amin & Sheila J. Banani Research assistant, Hoover Institute 1954 Richard H. & Margaret D. Foster 1955 Bruce D. & Virginia L. Mead Carpenter 1956 Edward T. & Betty Marion Student 1957-1962 Oden M. & Mary M. Christenson Photographer, Thomson Lithoplate 1963-1967 Robert L. Mull Charles W. Mull Owner: Ellison Family Bodyman, Ellison’s Body Shop 1968-1974 No listing Owner: Ellison Family 10 Palo Alto AAUW, ...Gone Tomorrow? "Neat Cottages" & "Handsome Residences." (Palo Alto: American Association of University Women, 1971, revised 1986). 11 A birth announcement in the San Francisco Chronicle spells the name “Milton,” and suggests that George and Grace were residing at 181 Addison Avenue as early as 1926; “Births,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 16, 1926. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 10 of 12 Resource Name or # 181 Addison Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 23, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Table 2. Occupant History of 181 Addison Avenue Date(s) Occupant(s)/Owner(s), if known Occupation (if listed) 1975-1976 One Eight One Addison Art Gallery Owner: Ellison Family 1977-present Donald Ellison Earl “Buzz” Ellison Owner: Ellison Family Artist Owner, Ellison’s Towing The following biographical information has been compiled for early and long -term owners of 181 Addison Avenue. Biographical information has been sourced from historic newspapers, city directories, Ancestry.com, and additional online sources. Sarah Louise Kimball: Original Owner-Occupant, 1903-1907 Sarah Louise Kimball (1865-1943) was born in La Crosse, Wisconsin, and was an active member of the Daughters of the American Revolution.12 According to a 2001 Palo Alto Historic Resources Board staff report citing Dalles Wood’s History of Palo Alto (1939), Kimball was a member of one of the six pioneer families of Palo Alto, headed by her cousin P. B. Kimball.13 While living in Oakland, Sarah Louise Kimball began to acquire properties on Emerson Street, and h er father, C. B. Kimball, built several houses for her. Sarah Louise Kimball moved to 839 Emerson Street in Palo Alto in 1897 before moving to the subject property at 181 Addison Street in 1903 after its completion. Kimball resided at the subject property with her mother, Mary Ann Kimball, and sister until 1907. In the 1910 Census, Kimball was listed as living at 161 Addison Street (demolished), immediately south of the subject propert y. Kimball, who was employed as a stenographer at a law office, appears to have died unmarried. According to local newspapers, she was an active member in the California Genealogical Society.14 Ellison Family/Ellison’s Towing: Owners-Occupants, c.1963-present Earl M. Ellison, Sr. (1901-1981) and his wife, Maxine (1906-2001), moved to Palo Alto from San Francisco and opened Ellison’s Body, Fender & Radiator, Palo Alto’s first automobile body repair shop, in 1929 at the corner of High and Lytton streets.15 The building was torn down in 1937, and the business which became known as Ellison’s Body Shop, moved to 705 Alma Street (extant, but altered).16 Ellison had a daughter, Pauline, and two sons, Earl “Buzz” Ellison, Jr. and Donald “Don” Duane Ellison. Buzz (1926- 2018) took over his father’s business, running Ellison’s Body Shop until 1998, and also founded Ellison’s Towing in 1965, which still operates today (Figure 19).17 Donald Ellison (1930-) studied art at San Jose College, the Academy of Art in San Francisco, and Chounard Art Institute in Los Angeles.18 Based on building permit applications, the brothers appear to have owned the subject property at 181 Addison Avenue as early as 1963, when Robert L. Mull, a bodyman at Ellison’s body shop resided in the home. From 1975 to 1976, Palo Alto city directories listed the subject property as “One Eight One Addison Art Gallery,” which was run by Donald. Donald appears to have resided at the subject property from the mid-1970s until recently, and the property remains in the ownership of the Ellison family. Over the decades, Earl, Sr. and Buzz Ellison, who both lived in nearby Los Altos, used the large lot at 181 Addison Avenue for vehicle storage, which resulted in several neighbor complaints and city citations due to the residential zoning of the property. 12 North America, Family Histories, 1500-2000, Daughters of the American Revolution, accessed via Ancestry.com. 13 “181 Addison Avenue [01-HRB-04],” Historic Resources Board Staff Report, prepared by Dennis Backland, Historic Preservation Planner for the Historic Resources Board (July 18, 2001). 14 “Society Holds Meeting – California Genealogical Organization Elects Officers for Year,” San Francisco Examiner, March 31, 1912. 15 “Deaths – Maxine Ellison,” Palo Alto Weekly, June 20, 2001; and U.S., Find A Grave Index, 1600s-current, accessed via Ancestry.com. 16 “Old Maskey Building being demolished, 1937,” Photograph 067-084, Guy Miller Collection, Palo Alto Historical Association; and “705 Alma Street, 1975,” Photograph 086-031, Guy Miller archives, Palo Alto Historical Association. 17 “Earl ‘Buzz’ Ellison: Longtime Los Altos Resident towed a quick wit, valued ent husiasm,” Los Altos Town Crier, June 6, 2018. “Ellison’s Towing & Transport,” accessed January 4, 2019, https://ellisonstowing.com/our-founders/; and “2018: The Year in Review,” Los Altos Town Crier, December 26, 2018, https://www.losaltosonline.com/images/a_digital_edition/2018/LATC_12-26-18.pdf. 18 “Villa Montalvo Gallery Shows Palo Alto Artist,” San Mateo Times, July 3, 1968. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 11 of 12 Resource Name or # 181 Addison Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 23, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 19: Earl “Buzz” Ellison, owner, and John Kane, general manager, of Ellison’s Body Shop and Ellison’s Towing at 705 Alma Street in 1989. Source: Guy Miller Archives, Palo Alto Historical Association. Statement of Significance: The subject property at 181 Addison Avenue has been previously recommended for listing as a Historic Category 2 local historic resource in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 (Historic Preservation Ordinance). This finding was presented in 2001 by a historic preservation planner at the Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department to the Historic Resources Board; however, an action by the Historic Resources Board does not appear to have been taken either in fav or or rejection of the recommendation.19 This DPR from report does not address the eligibility of the subject property for listing as a local historic resource under Palo Alto municipal code. Furthermore, this report does not evaluate the property as a contributor to any potential historic district or as a potential extension of the existing Professorville Historic District. In order for a property to be considered eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), the property must possess significance and retain integrity to convey that significance. The criteria for designation are: 1. (Events): Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. 2. (Persons): Associated with the lives of persons important to local, Califor nia or national history. 3. (Architecture): Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. 4. (Information Potential): Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. Criterion 1 (Events): 181 Addison Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events). 181 Addison Avenue is one of a number of residences built in the University South neighborhood of Palo Alto during a period of early development around the turn of the twentieth century. The subject is building is not the oldest building in the neighborhood, nor does it stand out as individually representative of this early period of residential growth. The subject building is not associated with any significant events, and does not appear to have contributed to the broad patterns of history in Palo Alto, the state, or the nation, and is, therefore, not individually eligible for the California Register under Criterion 1. Criterion 2 (Persons): 181 Addison Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). Available documentation on the former owners and occupants of the subject building does not suggest that these individuals were particularly significant to local, state, or national history in any way directly associated with the subject building. The original owner of the property Sarah Louise Kimball worked as a legal stenographer and was part of one of six pioneer Palo Alto families. Kimball owned and developed several properties in the neighborhood, but does not appear to have h ad a significant impact on the development or history of Palo Alto such that the subject property would be eligible for listing in the 19 “181 Addison Avenue [01-HRB-04],” Historic Resources Board Staff Report, prepared by Dennis Backland, Historic Preservation Planner for the Historic Resources Board (July 18, 2001). State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 12 of 12 Resource Name or # 181 Addison Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 23, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L California Register under Criterion 2. Later owners and occupants, the Ellison Family, continue to run a successful towing business in Palo Alto; however, the towing business does not appear to have any significance to Palo Alto history or significance within the industry. Resident Don Ellison worked as an artist and converted the attic of the subject building to a studio, but no specif ic information was found about Ellison’s artwork during the course of research. Thus, 181 Addison Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for the California Register under Criterion 2. Criterion 3 (Architecture): 181 Addison Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture). Information regarding the original construction of the building is limited to early Sanborn maps as no original building permit application is on file at Palo Alto Development Services, and no original building permit index record is on file at the Palo Alto Historical Association. The subject building has several unique or unusual features not typical to other Vernacular bungalows of the same era, including the building’s orientation and the slightly flared eaves of the hipped roof. The ogee-pattern muntins of the original windows exhibit an attention to craftsmanship. However, overall the building is modest in design and detail and does not stand out among numerous other residential examples of Vernacular bungalows locally, statewide, or nationally. Additionally, available documentation and scholarship related to the building does not place it within the portfolio of a prominent architect or builder who would be considered a master. Therefore, the subject building does not appear to be individually significant under Criterion 3. Criterion 4 (Information Potential): 181 Addison Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible under Criterion 4 as a building that has the potential to provide information important to the prehistory or history of the City of Palo Alto, the state, or the nation. It does not feature construction or material types, or embody engineering practices that would, with additional study, provide important information. Page & Turnbull’s evaluation of this property was limited to age -eligible resources above ground and did not involve survey or evaluation of the subject property for the purposes of archaeological information. In conclusion, 181 Addison Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under any criteria. B l d g 3 Peninsula Crea m ery Heinichens_Garage Bldg 5 225.0' 250.0' 112.5' 25.0' 225.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 40.0' 105.0' 40.0' 105.0' 55.5' 105.0' 55.5' 105.0' 44.5' 105.0' 44.5' 105.0' 75.0' 105.0' 75.0' 105.0' 75.0' 105.0' 75.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 00.0'100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 0' 70.0' 50.0'70.0' 50.0' 30.0' 50.0' 30.0' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 52.5' 100.0' 52.5' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 75.0' 105.0' 75.0' 105.0' 75.0' 105.0' 75.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 90.0' 105.0' 90.0' 105.0' 35.0' 105.0' 35.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 75.0' 105.0' 75.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 58.6' 27.3'16.5' 117.3' 75.0' 90.0' 50.0' 210.0' 50.0' 110.0' 14.0' 30.0' 14.0' 70.0' 75.0' 22.7' 16.5' 27.3' 58.6' 50.0' 150.0' 70.0' 150.0' 70.0' 200.0' 75.0' 200.0' 75.0' 110.0' 14.0' 30.0' 61.0' 140.0' 75.0' 75.0' 105.0' 75.0' 105.0' 55.0' 105.0' 55.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 200.0' 65.0' 200.0' 65.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 5 200.0' 195.0' 200.0' 105.0' 200.0' 105.0' 200.0' 60.0' 56.7' 2 6 . 8' 118.5' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 68.5' 2 6 .8' 56.7' 40.0' 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 115.0' 100.0' 93.0' 100.0' 93.0' 9 100.0' 62.0' 145.0' 112.5'145.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 125.0' 100.0' 125.0' 50.0' 124.8' 50.0' 124.8' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'150.0' 165.0' 75.0' 45.0' 75.0' 45.0' 50.0' 100.2' 50.0' 100.2' 36.3' 100.2' 36.3' 100.2' 76.2' 100.2' 76.2' 100.2' 50.0' 225.0' 50.0' 225.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 112.5' 112.5' 112.5' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5'45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5'45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5'45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5' 75.0' 50.0'75.0' 50.0' 75.0' 48.0' 75.0' 48.0' 75.0' 41.0' 75.0' 41.0' 75.0' 41.0' 75.0' 41.0' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 87.5' 112.5' 87.5' 112.5' 112.5' 56.0' 112.5' 56.0' 112.5' 56.5' 112.5' 56.5' 112.5' 56.0' 112.5' 56.0' 112.5' 56.5' 112.5' 56.5' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 50.0' 100.0' 34.0' 100.0' 34.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 57.0' 112.5' 57.0' 112.5' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 200.0' 105.0' 200.0' 00' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 125.0' 100.0' 12.5' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5 50.0' 0 125.0' 100.0' 12.5' 50.0' 125.0' 100.0' 12.5' 50.0' 125.0' 100.0' 12.5' 50.0' 125.0' 100.0' 12.5' 50.0' 125.0' 100.0' 12.5' 50.0' 125.0' 100.0' 12.5' 50.0' 125.0' 100.0' 12.5' 50.0' 125.0' 100.0' 12.5' 50.0' 125.0' 100.0' 12.5' 50.0' 125.0' 100.0' 12.5' 50.0' 65.0' 100.0' 100.0' 1 1 7 .8'66.2' 100.0'128.5' 50.0' 0' 127.5' 5 8 .9 ' 96.4' 50.0' 146.4' 7 6 .5' 106.0' 65.0' 104.9' 1 3 2 .5' 35.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 79.8' 1 3 2.5'54.9' 22.5' 45.0' 90.0' 45.0' 90.0' 45.0' 90.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 193.5' 135.3' 1 2 .3' 75.0' 105.0' 75.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 65.0' 105.0' 65.0' 105.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 67.2' 112.5' 67.2' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 60.0' 30.0' 11.1' 70.0' 71.1' 100.0' 61.7' 112.5' 61.7' 112.5' 87.5' 105.0' 87.5' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 47.5'50.0' 65.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 90.0' 73.9' 4 2 .6' 67.5' 110.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 105.0' 100.0' 105.0' 60.0' 11 1 6 5.0' 23.7' 140.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 65.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 60.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 87.5' 105.0' 87.5' 105.0' 40.0' 105.0' 50.0 9 3 8 .0' 578.2' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 33.3' 105.0' 33.3' 105.0' 33.3' 105.0' 33.3' 105.0' 33.3' 105.0' 33.3' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 100.0' 105.0' 100.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 100.0' 105.0' 100.0' 105.0' 250.0' 137.5' 112.5'137.5' 112.5' 75.0' 105.0' 75.0' 105.0' 52.0' 105.0' 52.0' 105.0' 73.0' 105.0' 73.0' 105.0' 100.0' 105.0' 100.0' 105.0' 100.0' 105.0' 100.0' 105.0' 100.0' 105.0' 100.0' 105.0' 200.0' 105.0' 200.0' 105.0' 112.5' 124.8' 112.5' 124.8' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 1 2 1 . 2' 5 0 .0 ' 12 1 . 2 ' 5 0 .0' 5 0 .0' 1 2 1 . 2 ' 5 0 .0 ' 1 2 1 . 2 ' 5 0 .0' 12 1 . 2 ' 5 0 .0 ' 1 2 1 . 2 ' 5 0 .0' 1 2 1 . 2' 5 0 .0 ' 1 2 1 . 2 ' 5 0 .0 ' 1 2 1 . 2' 5 0 .0 ' 1 2 1 . 2' 56.3' 100.0' 56.2' 100.0' 112.5' 56.0' 112.5' 56.0' 187.5' 112.5' 187.5' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 43.0' 112.5' 43.0' 112.5' 105.0' 56.3' 105.0' 56.3' 112.5' 56.5' 112.5' 56.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 95.0' 112.5' 95.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 55.0' 112.5' 50.0' 56.3' 5.0' 56.3' 125.0' 105.0' 50.1' 84.5' 50.1' 84.5' 62.4' 84.5' 62.4' 84.5' 112.5' 28.0' 12.5'1.5' 100.0' 29.5' 100.0' 30.7' 100.0' 30.7' 0.1'50.1' 54.4' 50.1' 55.0' 50.1' 55.5' 50.0' 55.0' 400.0' 105.0' 400.0' 105.0' 124.5' 30.0' 111.1' 154.5' 134.0' 25.0' 12.5' 28.9' 112.5' 124 . 5 ' 35.0' 63.9' 80.3' 80.3' 80.3' 80.3' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 112.5'150.0' 1 8 2.3' 2 00 .0' 1 2 1 . 1 ' 14.3' 7 2 .6 ' 137.4' 8 4 .5' 11 2 .3' 3 9 . 0' 48.0' 43.5' 1 1 2 .3' 8 2 . 2 ' 2 2 4 .6' 212.7' 72.0' 250.0' 105.0' HIG H S T R E E T R A M O N A ST R E E T LIN C O L N A V E N U E LIN C O L N A V E N U E R A M O N A S T R E E T E M E R S O N ST R E E T HIG H S T R E E T E M B A R CA D E R O RO A D E M E R S O N S T R E E T E M E R S O N S T R E ET H O M E R A V E N U E E M E R S O B R Y A N T S C O TT S T R E E T A D DIS O N A V E N U EB R Y A N T ST R E E T B R Y A N T S T R E E T A D DIS O N A V E N U E LIN C O R A M O N A S T R E E T R A M O N A S T R E E T W A V E L A N E B E A S T LA N E D E A S T L A N E D W E S T L A N E 59 E A S T E M E R S O N S T R E ET E M E R S O N S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E T HIG H S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T A L M A S T R E E T AL M A S T R E E T C H A N NIN G A V E N U E A D DIS O N A V E N U E E N C I N A A V E N U E LA N E 8 W E S T LA N E A W E S T LA N E B W E S T C H A N NIN G A V E N U E CC RM-20 R-1 P C-370 RT-35 PC- 4389 CS DHSCD-S(P)AMF RT-50 RT-35 35 R-2 RT- 50 PC-4779 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Known Structures Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Highlighted Features Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels Buffer 0' 213' 18 1 A d d i s o n A v e w / 5 0 0 ' B u f f e r Hi g h l i g h t e d F e a t u r e s a r e l o t s wi t h i n t h e R - 1 & R - 2 D i s t r i c t s an d s u b j e c t t o 6 0 ' f r o n t a g e s t a n d a r d CITY O F PALO A L T O I N C O R P O R A T E D C ALI FO R N I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto dcondit, 2021-03-16 11:59:21 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\dcondit.mdb) Attachment F Project Plans During the ongoing Shelter-in-Place, project plans are only available online. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and- Development-Services/181-Addison-Avenue-20PLN-00300 2. Scroll down to find “C2_181ADD_PLAN” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage, you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: http://bit.ly/181AddisonAvePPMEV City of Palo Alto (ID # 11979) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/18/2021 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: RHNA Appeal Discussion Title: Direction to Staff Regarding 2023 -31 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Appeal From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council: 1. Decline to file an appeal to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation assigned to Palo Alto, which is anticipated to be about 6,086 housing units over the next Housing Element cycle, or 2. Direct staff to prepare and file an appeal of the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation, which is anticipated to be about 6,086 housing units over the next Housing Element cycle and provide direction to staff on the key arguments to include in the appeal. Executive Summary: Since 1969, the State of California has required each local government to plan for its share of the state’s housing needs for people of all income levels. The state accomplishes this through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, administered through the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Through RHNA, every local jurisdiction is allocated a number of housing units representing its share of the state’s housing needs for an eight-year period. As part of the assignment process, prior to each Bay Area jurisdiction receiving a Final RHNA, jurisdictions have a chance to appeal their Draft RHNA to ABAG pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.05. This section specifies permissible bases for appeal, such as ABAG’s failure to adequately consider information submitted by the City about local plannin g factors, errors in ABAG’s development or application of its Final RHNA Methodology or significant and unforeseen changed circumstances in the City. The appeal process is currently scheduled for Summer 2021, although ABAG has not yet set a precise schedule. If the Council chooses to City of Palo Alto Page 2 formally file an appeal, staff recommends focusing an appeal on issues with ABAG’s development of the Final RHNA Methodology. Staff is requesting Council direction on whether to move forward to prepare an appeal of the anticipated Draft RHNA of 6,086 units and if the Council chooses to move forward, to provide specific feedback on concerns to focus on for the appeal. Background: California state law1 recognizes that local governments play a key role in developing housing and has mandated that local governments plan for the development of housing. This mandate is implemented in part through the state Housing Element requirements and assignment of housing unit production targets for each jurisdiction in a designated region. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines the total number of new homes the Bay Area needs to build—and how affordable those homes need to be—in order to meet the housing needs of people at all income levels. For the Bay Area, HCD has determined that 441,176 housing units are needed between 2023 -31. This number is known as the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND). ABAG is responsible for preparing a methodology to distribute the 441,176 housing units throughout the nine county Bay Area region. Starting in late 2019, ABAG has been in the process of developing the RHNA methodology. This methodology relies on future population projections documented in the final Plan Bay Area 2050 (PBA 2050) regional plan and includes equity adjustments to affirmatively further fair housing. ABAG’s RHNA methodology requires HCD approval, which was granted on April 12, 2021. Based on this methodology, the City of Palo Alto is expected to receive a RHNA of 6,086 housing units to plan for in its Housing Element update that is currently underway. As with prior housing cycles, Bay Area jurisdictions will have an opportunity to appeal their assigned RHNA within 45 days following ABAG’s release of the final RHNA methodology and draft RHNA numbers, which is expected to occur in the summer. Unlike prior housing cycles, jurisdictions may also challenge another jurisdiction’s RHNA. ABAG is expected to provide guidance on the appeal process in May or early June. Regardless of particular procedural requirements, the grounds to file an appeal are set forth in State statute Government Code Section 65584.05. This section provides that any appeal: • be based upon comparable data available for all affected jurisdictions and accepted planning methodology; 1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=7.&part=&chap ter=3.&article=10.6. City of Palo Alto Page 3 • supported by adequate documentation; • shall include a statement as to why the revision is necessary to further the intent of the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section 65584;2 and, • shall be consistent with and not to the detriment to the development pattern in an applicable sustainable communities strategy. Moreover, any appeal that is filed shall be limited to any of the following circumstances: A. 65584.05(b)(1): The council of governments failed to adequately consider the information submitted pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 65584.04. [i.e. ABAG failed to consider a jurisdiction’s responses to a survey it issued in 2020 regarding local planning factors.3] B. 65584.05(b)(2): The council of governments or delegate subregion, as applicable, failed to determine the share of the regional housing need in accordance with the information described in, and the methodology established pursuant to, Section 65584.04, and in a manner that furthers, and does not undermine, the intent of the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of section 65584. [i.e. ABAG failed to develop a jurisdiction’s RHNA in accordance with information submitted regarding local planning factors, in accordance with its adopted RHNA methodology, or in a manner that undermines the objectives of the RHNA process.] C. 65584.05(b)(3): A significant and unforeseen change in circumstances has occurred in the local jurisdiction or jurisdictions that merits a revision of the information submitted pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65584.04. Appeals on this basis shall only be made by the jurisdiction or jurisdictions where the change in circumstances has occurred. [i.e. 2 The objectives in this code section include: (1) increasing housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure and affordability, (2) promoting in -fill development and socioeconomic equity, (3) promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing, including low wage jobs to the number of housing units affordable to low wage workers, (4) Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category, as compared to the countywide distribution of households, and (5) affirmatively furthering fair housing. 3 Government Code section 65584.04(e) lists a number of factors that ABAG is required to consider in developing the RHNA methodology. The list includes: existing and projected jobs -housing balance; capacity of sewer or water service; availability of suitable sites; lands designated as open space; agreements between a city and a county directing growth to certain areas; existing level of rent-burdened households; rate of overcrowding; housing needs of a neighboring university; housing needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness; etc. The statute is available here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65584.04.&lawCode=GOV. On January 8, 2020 the City received an email from ABAG requesting the City’s response to a RHNA survey. On January 13th a second email was received with a deadline to complete the survey by February 13, 2020. Staff’s attempted response was after the deadline (February 21) and not accepted by ABAG. City of Palo Alto Page 4 significant and unforeseen change in circumstances requires revision to the local planning factor information submitted to ABAG.] If an appeal were filed, it is anticipated the City would argue its perspective based on the circumstances provided in letter B and possibly C, above. The City has repeatedly noted its concerns with data assumptions used in the preparation of PBA 2050 and anticipated significant and unforeseen changes in circumstances related to the Covid-19 pandemic and recession. Other procedural issues previously raised by staff during the RHNA methodology process, such as the rushed timeline and limited opportunity to review voluminous documents before public meetings, are disconcerting to the process but ultimately not grounds for appeal. Additionally, previously cited objections by some community and Council-members to HCD’s RHND is also not a basis to file a RHNA appeal, despite documented concerns by those that argue the number is too high and from others that suggest the number is too low. The opportunity to appeal the RHND lapsed last summer and could have only been initiated by ABAG itself. Discussion: PBA 2050 is a long range policy document intended to guide future growth in the Bay Area. The population projections used in PBA 2050 reflect a possible growth scenario that anticipates a need for over four million total housing units in the Bay Area by 2050. Palo Alto is projected to add 11,054 housing units during this same planning horizon. The plan focuses on the region’s economy, environment, housing and transportation. PBA 2050 and the RHNA methodology are closely related. The population projections in PBA 2050 were used as a starting point in ABAG’s RHNA methodology; in calculating the draft RHNA, ABAG first looked to each jurisdiction’s portion of the region’s overall projected 2050 housing needs. Palo Alto represents about .9% of the Bay Area’s future housing unit need in 2050. The RHNA methodology then refines each jurisdiction’s percentage higher or lower using a number of equity adjustments and other factors, such as access to high opportunity centers and job proximity. The resulting percentage is then applied to the RHND to determine each jurisdiction’s RHNA number. With the adjustments, Palo Alto’s percentage increased to approximately 1.4%. Applied to an RHND of 441,176, this results in an anticipated RHNA for Palo Alto of 6,086 housing units. Notably, an earlier draft PBA 2050 document forecasted a greater percentage of the region’s population in Palo Alto, leading to a higher baseline for the RHNA process, and accordingly, a City of Palo Alto Page 5 higher anticipated RHNA of 10,058. As explained in a recent report to Council4 on Plan Bay Area and RHNA Methodology, this reduction from 10,058 housing units to 6,086 housing units resulted from the following changes in the underlying PBA 2050 model: 1) An updated strategy to “Build Adequate Affordable Housing to Ensure Homes for All,” which forecasted more housing in San Francisco and the East Bay. 2) An updated strategy to “Provide Incentives to Employer s to Shift Jobs to Housing-Rich Areas Well Served by Transit,” which shifted some originally forecasted jobs away from the South Bay. 3) An updated strategy to “Accelerate Reuse of Public and Community-Owned Land for Mixed-Income Housing and Essential Services,” which appears to more evenly distribute housing opportunities. 4) Feedback from individual jurisdictions, like Palo Alto, on potential errors in ABAG’s land use maps that would affect feasibility of future housing opportunities. More information on the PBA 2050 and the Draft RHNA Methodology can be found on the MTC website,5 the ABAG website,6 and in the previously referenced City Manager Report (CMR) to Council. RHNA Concerns Throughout the RHNA methodology process, staff have consistently raised three general areas of concern, including: 1. The use of PBA 2050 future 2050 population projections as a baseline for the RHNA methodology; 2. concerns that the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and recession were not adequately addressed in PBA 2050; and, 3. inadequate access to and incorrect information in jurisdiction-level datasets that influence future growth analysis. The Council has previously considered these concerns and offered some additional perspectives that were included in a letter signed by the Mayor and sent to the ABAG Executive Board (Attachment A). To briefly summarize each of these points: Staff’s concerns using PBA 2050 as the baseline is that it relies too aggressively on regional policy changes and unfunded initiatives – some of which require voter approval, political compromise and infrastructure that has not been 4 Council Report, dated January 11, 2021: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/current-year/2021/id-11866.pdf 5 https://www.planbayarea.org/. 6 https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needs-allocation City of Palo Alto Page 6 funded, approved or built – in order to house the projected Bay Area population growth in 2050. If the policies and initiatives set forth in PBA 2050 are not implemented within a reasonable timeframe, which seems unlikely given the disruption of the Covid -19 pandemic, the region will fall well short of meeting the projected housing needs and most jurisdictions will fail to meet their RHNA numbers. The City has long argued for a phase d approach that recognizes these constraints and stretches jurisdictions to produce achievable housing targets, which can be scaled if the ambitious policies in PBA 2050 come to fruition. Moreover, the City has expressed concern that PBA 2050 fails to adequately address the implications of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has significantly impacted local jurisdiction budgets, displaced workers, and changed for an undetermined period of time where people work, how goods and services are accessed, and commute b ehavior. While ABAG asserts their model anticipates recessionary cycles, it is unclear whether the effects of this pandemic are in line with those projections. Access to accurate datasets has been an ongoing concern. ABAG has been reluctant to share jurisdiction-level analysis in a timely fashion and when it has been provided, it was difficult to review relative to other datasets that appeared to contain conflicting information. The process of reviewing the PBA 2050 assumptions and understanding the analys is has been frustrated by the lack of reliable data on a timely basis. Notwithstanding these challenges, staff believe ABAG has incorrectly assigned more housing units to Palo Alto than warranted in PBA 2050. However, as detailed in the following section, it is unclear whether correction of these errors would result in any significant changes to the City’s RHNA. Analysis of Palo Alto RHNA Appeal Based on the appeal criteria identified in the Background section of this report and given HCD’s and ABAG’s Executive Board’s endorsement of the draft RHNA methodology, staff does not believe an appeal that focuses non-technical or policy analysis will be successful. In addition, if an appeal argument does not meet the criteria provided in state law the appeal will be rejected. Accordingly, staff recommends an appeal, if filed, focus on data discrepancies that can be documented and materially impact the City’s RHNA requirement. Staff has identified a number of data errors in the PBA 2050 dataset. The more signific ant errors affect fewer than 10 properties. These include two Palo Alto Unified School District properties (Frank Greene Middle School and Herbert Hoover Elementary School) that are not anticipated to be redeveloped for housing; more fundamentally, the Cit y does not have the regulatory authority to mandate housing at those locations. Seven other properties, which may reasonably redevelop over the next 30 years, are shown to include unrealistic housing densities between 360 and 1,625 dwelling units per acre. Even if the City contemplated higher densities on these City of Palo Alto Page 7 parcels at 120 units per acre7, staff estimates the PBA 2050 analysis assigns 1,174 more housing units to Palo Alto than appropriate over a 30 year planning horizon. Importantly, this does not equate to a reduction in the City’s RHNA by 1,174 units. This number needs to be factored into the long term growth projections and applied to the draft RHNA methodology. Staff’s analysis suggests if an appeal on these data discrepancies were filed and upheld, i t could reduce the City’s RHNA by approximately 180 units. While not necessarily a data discrepancy, staff wants the Council and community to know that PBA 2050 anticipates over the next 30 years that the Stanford Research Park and Stanford Shopping Center are projected to yield 2,572 and 5,373 housing units respectively. The Stanford Shopping Center properties included in the analysis contains 73 acres and would result in about 74 units per acre. While the overall unit count is high, the density per acre does not appear infeasible and this does reflect a 30 year planning horizon. If Council wanted to challenge the housing projections in one or both of these areas, and if any appeal were upheld, it could result in a lower RHNA for Palo Alto. However, staff is less optimistic that such an appeal would prevail and notes that it would be challenging to assert in one instance that there are too many housing units projected in these areas while simultaneously identifying some of these parcels as potential housing opportunity sites in the upcoming and future housing cycles. Staff has observed other minor data discrepancies that individually or collectively would not materially change the City’s RHNA number. Policy Implications: Based on the foregoing, the City Council is encouraged to weigh the anticipated benefits of challenging the City’s RHNA number with the resource costs and other implications associated with this action. Staff that would process the appeal from planning and the city attorney’s office are also working on the Housing Element and other City Council -directed policy initiatives; it would also be the same staff responding to any appeal filed by another jurisdiction challenging Palo Alto’s RHNA number. Most RHNA appeals are unsuccessful. During the last housing cycle, ABAG processed 14 appeals and only three were upheld. Jurisdictions located in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are now completing their Housing Element update. SCAG was responsible for hearing 52 RHNA appeals. Of the 52 appeals, only two were partially upheld and these appeals were based on technical corrections. Even if the City were to appeal and be successful in its efforts, staff does not anticipate the results would have a significant impact to the ultimate number of housing units the City needs 7 The workforce housing project at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road on the former VTA surface parking lot is being built at 120 units per acre. City of Palo Alto Page 8 to plan for or alter the City’s approach to the Housing Element. Staff also anticipates that other jurisdictions may appeal Palo Alto’s RHNA, which was reduced from over 10,000 units under the draft PBA 2050 to now 6,086; Palo Alto was the only jurisdiction to receive such a substantial (39%) decrease during the RHNA development process. It is also anticipated that the decision to appeal the City’s RHNA would increase public discussion in news outlets and other media concerning Palo Alto’s role in the addressing the region’s housing shortage and social equity considerations. Conversely, the City is facing a dramatic increase in its projected RHNA numbers, as are many Bay Area jurisdictions, and the Council may want to exhaust all possible avenues to reduce its RHNA targets to a more achievable level. Resource Impact: Pursuit of a RHNA appeal will require the diversion of PDS and CAO staff from the Housing Element Update process. This is a concern for both the appeal and the Housing Element Update, since both tasks are time sensitive and delays could have adverse impacts on both. Timeline: Per State statue, the RHNA appeal must be submitted within 45 days of ABAG releasing the Draft RHNA to each jurisdiction. In the event another jurisdiction appeals Palo Alto’s RHNA (seeking to increase the figure), Palo Alto will have a further 45 days to provide a response. It is anticipated that ABAG will release the Draft RHNA sometime in May or June. The review of the RHNA appeals and related hearings are planned for Summer/Fall, with the Final RHNA approved by December 2021. From a time and process perspective, the City will continue pursuing the development of the Housing Element update based on the Draft RHNA unless o r until an apeal is upheld. If an appeal by the City is upheld—or if an appeal from another jurisdiction is upheld—the City will need to incorporate the resulting RHNA into the project. Stakeholder Engagement: Staff did not perform public outreach for this item. Environmental Review: The requested action is not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and environmental review is not required. Attachments: Attachment A: 01.21.21 Palo Alto Council Letter (RHNA PBA50) (PDF)     CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650‐329‐2100  January 21, 2021    ABAG Executive Board Members & Metropolitan Transportation Commission Members  Submitted Via Email To: info@bayareametro.gov     RE: City of Palo Alto Comments on Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint and Draft RHNA Methodology    Dear Board Members, Commissioners and MTC/ABAG Staff,    Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. This letter addresses the Plan Bay Area 2050 Final  Blueprint (PBA50) and the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA). While MTC is not directly associated  with RHNA, its decision on PBA50 has implications on housing allocation throughout the region and  therefore comments on both topics are included in this letter.   The City of Palo Alto is generally aligned with the objectives of PBA50 to improve access to housing  (production and affordability), enhance mobility options, protect and restore our natural environment,  and to ensure the continued vitality of our shared economy. Palo Alto is known for aggressively protecting  its natural resources, expanding parkland opportunities, experimenting/implementing multi‐modal  transportation alternatives and supporting a diverse business climate. To some, Palo Alto may be less  known for its efforts to improve our social and economic balance and to promote more housing  opportunities. Some of these efforts, just within the last five years, include the following:    Contributed over $40 million in City funds toward the preservation or creation of affordable and  teacher housing in Palo Alto;   Imposed an annual and 15‐year cap (through 2030) on office development, specifically to reduce  our rate of job growth to or even below levels sustainable by our practical housing growth.  By  managing both supply and demand for housing, we expect to become, and indeed may already  be, a net annual housing provider to the region;   Modified zoning standards to encourage more housing in commercial districts (reduced parking  requirements, eliminated density restrictions, increased floor area) and exceeded development  incentives that could otherwise be gained through state mandates, including the state density  bonus law;    Established renter protections for multi‐family housing stock;   Upzoned accessory dwelling unit standards more liberally than state mandates;    Created zoning overlays for workforce housing projects up to 150% of area median income and  100% affordable housing projects;    Increased density allowances in our lower‐density multi‐family zones; and,    Established a safe parking program for private property and partnered with the County to place a  safe parking facility on City‐owned land.  The City is aware of its need to produce more housing, especially affordable housing to improve housing  fit and increase overall housing stock. The City consistently meets its market rate RHNA housing targets,  but like most California communities, struggles to produce housing available to lower income households.   For the past several months the City has transmitted public comments in response to documents released  by ABAG/MTC staff. The City appreciates that staff has taken into consideration some of this input when  it released PBA50. Despite significant reductions to Palo Alto’s RHNA number, the starting place for these      CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650‐329‐2100  reductions were already at unattainable levels. Similarly, the City’s resultant anticipated RHNA, which is  benchmarked from PBA50’s 2050 Future Household Projections, remains unlikely for a community of our  size with limited opportunities for redevelopment. As the City is assigned a percentage of the Bay Area’s  future regional growth, a corresponding baseline allocation is applied to the Bay Area’s regional housing  needs determination (RHND), which is then proportioned to all cities and counties. This number  represents the minimum number of housing units a jurisdiction must plan to build in the next eight‐year  housing cycle. Unfortunately, the state Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) appears  to have erred in its determination of the RHND as documented by the Embarcadero Institute1 and Freddie  Mac.2  The Palo Alto City Council urges ABAG/MTC to challenge HCD on its RHND determination, which has been  independently found to be in error and consider arguments by other regional agencies such as the  Southern California Association of Governments. ABAG/MTC is the agency charged with reviewing and  challenging the RHND when released by HCD and appealing the number when warranted. It appears  ABAG/MTC failed to identify these potential errors and declined to appeal the RHND. It now has a  responsibility to its member jurisdictions to expose any errors it missed earlier and stand up for  jurisdictions that are overburdened with implausible RHNA numbers.   Moreover, there remain significant unanswered questions related to the data analysis in PBA50. Palo Alto  and other local agencies have consistently requested jurisdiction‐level data to better understand the  assumptions, analysis and conclusions that make up PBA50. Because ABAG/MTC staff supported by the  Executive Board took the path to integrally link RHNA to PBA50, it is incumbent upon this agency to be  transparent and show its work. Cities and counties within the Bay Area are being burdened with  excessively high RHNA numbers – even without potential double counting errors from HCD – and the  implication of failing to meet the market rate RHNA targets necessarily means a loss of local land use  control for certain qualifying projects under SB35.  PLAN BAY AREA 2050 FINAL BLUEPRINT  The City has the following additional comments related to PBA50.    Model the office development cap instituted in Palo Alto.     Job growth and development projections must incorporate Palo Alto’s restrictions on the annual  amount of office growth that can occur in Palo Alto. Recognizing that spiraling Bay Area housing and  transportation woes have been driven by cities running large jobs/housing imbalances, Palo Alto  began in 2015 imposing office development caps specifically to decrease those imbalances.   Communities like Palo Alto and San Francisco that proactively seek to address their jobs/housing  imbalance through local policies should not be subjected to job growth projections that are out of  synch with local policies. Staff requested that the City’s adopted office cap be incorporated into the  modeling, but staff has not yet received confirmation that the cap is reflected in the Final Blueprint.    More specifically, the City of Palo Alto limits office growth in its key commercial corridors to annual  average of 50,000 square feet per year. The City also maintains a maximum overall office and research  and development cap, which only has about 550,000 square feet remaining. This limit on office  development needs to be incorporated into PBA50 and reflected in the 2050 household projection.    1 https://embarcaderoinstitute.com/portfolio‐items/double‐counting‐in‐the‐latest‐housing‐needs‐assessment/   2 http://www.freddiemac.com/research/insight/20200227‐the‐housing‐supply‐shortage.page       CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650‐329‐2100  The City previously requested confirmation on this issue through attendance and staff office hours  and formal public records requests. We have received some data, but it remains unclear whether the  annual office cap restrictions have been appropriately modeled.    At standard benchmarks of 250 workspace square feet per employee, and 1.5 workers per housing  unit, if Palo Alto achieves even just 1,470 housing units by 2030 – less than one quarter of our current  proposed allocation – then over the RHNA Cycle 6 time period, Palo Alto will be one of the extremely  few Bay Area cities to actually be a net housing provider to the region.        Palo Alto requests jurisdiction‐level data on forecasted job growth in the Final Blueprint. With this  information, Palo Alto and other jurisdictions can offer more feedback regarding how the job growth  projections may be refined.      Reduce the number of jobs attributed to jurisdictions with employers in sectors with high  telecommuting rates.     Telecommuting may be a long‐term social and employment impact of COVID‐19. Many businesses  and institutions are, out of necessity, finding ways to shift operations to completely or mostly remote  operations. Many large employers have shifted to remote operations. Once the pandemic subsides,  many employers may continue a remote portion of their operations. The potential is very real that  telecommuting could represent a larger share of jobs than is currently modeled, and thus a reduction  in the number of commuters and a shift in where jobs are located. For example, the City anticipates  retention of telecommuting for many employees with jobs attributed to Palo Alto employers and the  possibility of associated lower demand for housing within the City and nearby. MTC/ABAG staff  indicated that the Final Blueprint strategy EN7 accounts for significantly more telecommuting, as well  as more use of transit and active transportation modes. However, the strategy still appears to  attribute jobs to headquarters, assuming employees come to the office some days a week. The City  encourages MTC/ABAG to consider a reasonable percentage of telecommute‐friendly sector jobs to  be reassigned away from job headquarters, as well as to make a stronger push for to model  telecommuting in employment dynamics beyond an assumption ranging between 17‐25% of the  workforce for some jurisdictions.        The impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic —including the economic recession, anticipated changes in  commute patterns, and other impacts—must be aggressively and clearly incorporated into the Final  Blueprint documents, Implementation Plan, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and overall final  Plan Bay Area 2050.     The COVID‐19 pandemic created an economic recession that has and will continue to severely impact  local governments, regional transportation systems, job growth, population growth and migration,  and all development—from commercial to residential for multiple years well beyond 2021). The crisis  is ongoing, and so the true recovery has yet to begin. This crisis must be explicitly studied, modeled,  and discussed. The modeling and analyzed impacts must be a prominent, articulated part of the Final  Blueprint documents presented to MTC and the ABAG Executive Board, as well as the Implementation  Plan, EIR, and ultimately the final Plan Bay Area 2050. While the plan’s time horizon is long, the  impacts of the pandemic and recession are also long; no doubt the pandemic and recovery will shape  the next generation. Responsible planning must clearly and easily show how the pandemic is  accounted for year by year, especially in terms of job growth, population growth, housing demand,  and anticipated viability of various funding streams in Plan Bay Area 2050.       CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650‐329‐2100    Thoroughly understanding the COVID‐19 pandemic and recession modeling in the Final Blueprint will  help jurisdictions better understand 1) how the planning horizon in the Plan Bay Area 2050 Final  Blueprint translates into the 8‐year RHNA planning horizon and 2) anticipate potential timing for  jurisdiction partnership in achieving stated greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and other  goals in Plan Bay Area 2050.      To date, City staff has been unable to find a clear single source of COVID‐19 pandemic and recession  modeling information. Therefore, the City respectfully requests that this be provided as part of  forthcoming MTC/ABAG staff reports and presentations on the Final Blueprint, EIR, and  Implementation Plan so that the public can comment further. City staff currently understands that  the COVID‐19 pandemic and recession impacts are anticipated to last from approximately two years  to ten years, depending on the topic. For example, transportation strategies that assist in recovering  transit ridership to pre‐pandemic levels are frontloaded for implementation, whereas some housing  strategies are anticipated to take longer to fund and implement.      The underlying land use data incorporated into modeling must be accurate and jurisdiction‐level  modeling results must be provided so that jurisdictions can confirm land use accuracy and  understand the model’s assessments of development potential at the parcel level.     The interim Urban Sim 2.0 modeling showed some density and growth assigned to areas within  jurisdictions that should be excluded, such as creek parcels and Caltrain corridor parcels. Furthermore,  interim modeling appeared to not reduce density or growth assigned to historic districts or areas with  concentrations of small parcels. Palo Alto staff raised these and other topics and sought assurances  that the modeling was scrubbed for errors. City staff formally submitted a public record request to  obtain the information in order to confirm the accuracy of the modeling. While staff understands that  this information is forthcoming, staff still awaits baseline and the updated density parameters used in  modeling to accompany some initial 2050 jurisdiction‐level modeling received as of the preparation  of this letter.       Explain the distinction and overlap between the methodology used to create Plan Bay Area 2050  regional growth forecast versus the methodology used by the Department of Finance and the  Housing and Community Development Department to generate the Regional Housing Needs  Determination.      The Departments of Finance (DOF) and Housing and Community Development (HCD) prepared  projections for population growth and growth in households that led to the issuance of the Regional  Housing Need Determination (RHND). In addition, MTC/ABAG also prepared the Plan Bay Area 2050  Regional Growth Forecast Methodology, updating it in 2020. The City requests a clear description and  comparison of both methodologies.     RHNA METHODOLOGY  The City of Palo Alto has the following additional comments regarding the RHNA methodology.     Policy Areas of Concern    2050 Baseline Allocation Inappropriate for Eight‐Year RHNA Cycle. While the use of the 2050 Future  Households baseline from the Final Blueprint did reduce the anticipated draft RHNA housing units for the      CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650‐329‐2100  City, the City still holds that long range aspirational housing goals to the year 2050 should not be applied  to the near term RHNA allocation process, especially with three more RHNA cycles within the 30‐year time  horizon of Plan Bay Area 2050. The visionary housing goals in Plan Bay Area 2050 still rely on new funding  sources, some of which require voter approval, political compromises, and infrastructure that has not yet  been funded, approved, or built. Furthermore, MTC staff told City staff during a December 2020  Implementation Plan‐oriented meeting that the Implementation Plan would primarily be focused on the  next five years, given that another Plan Bay Area process would start again around that time. Other  baselines with factors and weighting could have been chosen, such as the 2019 Existing Households  baseline, 1) to root the RHNA methodology in existing conditions as a starting point and 2) to achieve the  housing goals and be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050.     Methodology Should Include an Allocation Cap to Address Development Feasibility. While the updated  strategies in the Final Blueprint appear to result in more regionally distributed jobs and housing, the City  still holds that the RHNA methodology should address development feasibility for jurisdictions by  including an allocation cap, especially under current circumstances where it will take time for developers  to prepare housing project plans and funding packages in recession conditions. The concern is some  jurisdictions potentially failing to meet their market rate housing targets, subsequently being subject to  the permit streamlining requirements of SB 35, and then these jurisdictions losing control over local land  use decisions four years into the RHNA cycle.     Methodology Promotes Urban Sprawl in Unincorporated Areas. Use of the Plan Bay Area 2050 Final  Blueprint 2050 Households baseline results in assigning new housing units to unincorporated County  areas across the region. This could lead to urban sprawl across the region contrary to local and state  environmental sustainability goals. Therefore, the City does not support the use of this baseline for the  methodology due to this basic concept.     As a possible remedy, ABAG and MTC staff suggested nearby Santa Clara County jurisdictions absorb  portions of these county housing units or potentially annex currently unincorporated areas. For Santa  Clara County and Palo Alto specifically, this approach requires legal review and is likely unworkable under  existing agreements between Santa Clara County, Stanford University, and Palo Alto. Furthermore, Palo  Alto does not have the ability to absorb new units currently anticipated to be assigned to Santa Clara  County; the City already absorbs a significant amount of the housing demand generated by Stanford  University land uses in the County. Recent public research documented that adjacent Stanford University  exacerbates housing demand in the City due to student and employee desire to live closer to retail, public  services, and transportation. In the past, through the RHNA appeal process, some of the City’s units were  transferred to the County to address this discrepancy. The adopted methodology should account for these  adjacency issues and not compel jurisdictions to file an appeal in order to receive a fair share allocation  of the regional housing need.     Procedural Areas of Concern    COVID‐19 Pandemic and Recession. With the unanticipated intrusion of COVID‐19 early this year and all  that has come with this pandemic, the seriousness and depth of its implications to the overall RHNA  process needs to be fully considered. It is important to understand how ABAG accounted for development  feasibility for the current eight‐year RHNA cycle under recession conditions. Additionally, it remains  unclear when new funding sources described in the Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint for housing  retention and production would arrive in this recession and if they would be in effect in time to assist  jurisdictions meet the RHNA allocations for the current eight‐year RHNA cycle.           CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650‐329‐2100  More can be done in the RHNA methodology to account for current and future improvements in the  existing jobs/housing imbalances in the region due to the current success of remote work and  telecommuting. The fundamental location attribution for the jobs related RHNA methodology factors  should be recalibrated for jurisdictions across the region. The pre‐pandemic and pre‐recession scoring  used does not account for outmigration of jobs from the Bay Area and the anticipated increased levels of  telecommuting in post‐pandemic and post‐recession conditions.     Data Areas of Concern (Mapping and Modeling)    Regional Growth Strategies Mapping and Modeling Accuracy. Mapping, modeling results, and associated  assessments of development potential underlie the regional growth pattern in the Plan Bay Area 2050  Final Blueprint. Accuracy in the regional growth strategies mapping and modeling is fundamental if 2050  Households is used as the RHNA methodology baseline. Staff coordination with ABAG/MTC staff regarding  the City’s portion of the regional growth geographies mapping and modeling remains ongoing. City staff  awaits remaining jurisdiction‐level modeling information from which to determine if the modeling no  longer includes some park and school areas, areas that are anticipated to experience lower or no transit  service levels in the future, the local Veterans Administration area that is assigned over 1,000 housing  units, and other areas of focus. To date, it has been difficult to have confidence in the use of the Plan Bay  Area 2050 Final Blueprint 2050 Households baseline with these mapping and modeling items outstanding.     Thank you for your continued consideration of our concerns and please provide local jurisdictions with  the information and data requested to ensure that this meaningful effort is transparent and results in  achievable goals that enhance the vitality and diversity of the Bay Area.     Sincerely,    Tom DuBois, Mayor    CC:  Palo Alto City Council Members  Ed Shikada, City Manager, City of Palo Alto  Molly Stump, City Attorney, City of Palo Alto  Jonathan Lait, Director, Planning and Development Services Department, City of Palo Alto  Dave Vautin, Assistant Director, Major Plans, Bay Area Metro, DVautin@bayareametro.gov  Paul Fassinger, Economist, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, pfassinger@bayareametro.gov  Fred Castro, Clerk of the Board, Association of Bay Area Governments, fcastro@bayareametro.gov  Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) staff, rhna@bayareametro.gov and rhna@TheCivicEdge.com  TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: JONATHAN LAIT, DIRECTOR DATE: MAY 18, 2021 SUBJECT: Direction to Staff Regarding 2023-31 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Appeal At the Mayor’s request, staff is transmitting documentation related to the City’s Cycle 5 Housing Cycle RHNA appeal (attached). _______________________ _________________________ Jonathan Lait Ed Shikada Director of Planning & Development Services City Manager 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B City of Palo Alto (ID # 3694) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/8/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: RHNA Agreement with County Title: Approval of Letter to Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to Transfer 200 Housing Units of Regional Housing Allocation (RHNA) from City of Palo Alto to Santa Clara County for the 2014 -2022 Planning Period From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letter (Attachment A) to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), concurring with San ta Clara County’s agreement to allow the transfer of 200 “moderate-income” housing units from the City to the County for the 2014-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Background On July 25, 2012, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) notified cities and counties in the Bay Area of the proposed Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the 2014-2022 planning period. The City of Palo Alto’s RHNA allocation is proposed for 2,179 housing units. On September 11, 2012, the City requested that ABAG reduce the City’s allocation, based on several concerns. One of the City’s arguments was that the allocations neglected to reflect the extensive development and housing planned for the Stanford campus in Santa Clara County and the resultant low allocation (77 units) for the County. ABAG denied the revision request, after which the City appealed the decision on February 12, 2013 (Attachment C), requesting a reduction of 350 units from the City’s allocation. City staff has simultaneously been working with Santa Clara County staff to attain a voluntary transfer of units from the County to the City. County staff has been coordinating the effort with Stanford, whose representatives were concerned that any reallocation could affect their General Use Permit flexibility. On March 29, 2013, the County informally indicated to City staff that they would support a transfer of 200 “median -income” units from the City to the County (Attachment B). City staff noted that the appeals hearing was set for April 1 and that the DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B City of Palo Alto Page 2 Council would need to approve the agreement. The ABAG RHNA Appeals Committee met on April 1 and denied the City’s request for the 350 unit reduction, but recommended the City and County continue to pursue a cooperative transfer. Discussion Staff believes that the County offer to accept a transfer of 200 “moderate-income” (80-120% of County median income) units from the City’s RHNA allocation is reasonable and should be accepted. The basis for the “moderate-income” designation is that Stanford, as a condition of its General Use Permit, already contributes substantial funding for affordable housing projects that support “low” and “very-low” income households. Affordable housing projects in Palo Alto have used the Stanford contributions as a key source of funding on more than one occasion. Stanford indicates that units anticipated for construction during the planning period are likely to meet the “moderate-income” household criteria. The City’s resultant allocation for the 2014-2022 planning period would be reduced to a total of 1,979 housing units (as compared to 2,860 units for the current planning period). The designation of the units to the “moderate-income” (80-120% of median County income) category is helpful to the City’s apportionment of income levels, as “moderate-income” housing is historically the most difficult for the City to attain. Upon approval by the Council, the County and City would convey their agreement to ABAG in advance of its April 19 transfer deadline. ABAG staff has previously indicated that it would support such an agreement between the two jurisdictions. The Executive Board for ABAG is expected to finalize the RHNA numbers in May. Policy Implications The agreement will help the City to develop a compliant housing element for the 2014-2022 planning period, and will be consistent with other City goals to address housing element policies. Environmental Review No environmental review is required for the transfer of units. Environmental review will be required for the 2014-2022 housing element. Attachments: DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B City of Palo Alto Page 3  Attachment A: Letter to ABAG Requesting RHNA Transfer (PDF)  Attachment B: March 29, 2013 County E-Mail re: City of Palo Alto RHNA Transfer (PDF)  Attachment C: April 1, 2013 Appeal Review Form by ABAG (PDF)  Attachment D: February 12, 2013 City of Palo Alto Appeal to ABAG (PDF) DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 Transportation 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2520 650.329.2154 Building 285 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2496 650.329.2240 April 9, 2013 Ezra Rapport, Executive Director Association of Bay Area Government Joseph P. Bort Metro Center P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94607-4756 Re: Transfer of RHNA Allocation from City of Palo Alto to Santa Clara County Dear Mr. Rapport: The City of Palo Alto requests that the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) accept the transfer of 200 “moderate-income” housing units from the City’s RHNA allocation to Santa Clara County for the 2014-2022 planning period, in agreement with the County’s concurrence to ABAG. The City sincerely appreciates the cooperation and accommodation of Santa Clara County staff, Supervisor Joe Simitian, and Stanford University in reaching this agreement. We also thank ABAG staff, particularly Gillian Adams and Hing Wong, for their help and support. The City looks forward to ABAG’s Executive Board adoption of the final RHNA allocations in May, reflecting the City-County adjustment. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Curtis Williams, the City’s Director of Planning and Community Environment, at (650) 329-2321 or curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org. Sincerely, H. Gregory Scharff Mayor cc: Joe Simitian, Supervisor, County of Santa Clara Kirk Girard, Planning Manager, County of Santa Clara Palo Alto City Council James Keene, City Manager, City of Palo Alto Attachment ADocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B 1 Betten, Zariah From:Girard, Kirk <kirk.girard@pln.sccgov.org> Sent:Friday, March 29, 2013 12:09 PM To:Williams, Curtis; Aknin, Aaron Cc:Carter, Charles S; Gonzalez, Nash; Phillips, William T; Palter, Catherine; McNair, Whitney; Ross, Steve; Bill Shoe (bill.shoe@pln.sccgov.org) Subject:RE: City of Palo Alto RHNA allocation appeal Curtis and Aaron, Based on our internal discussions and information provided by Stanford University, we would not object to an increase in our RHNA allocation for the 2014-2022 Housing Element planning period of 200 moderate income units. This is the number of moderate income RHNA qualified housing units we believe can be reasonably expected to be constructed on unincorporated Stanford lands during the Housing Element planning period of 2012 to 2022. The 200 moderate income unit estimate is based on a rough extrapolation of the 75 RHNA housing units currently planned within Stanford’s three to five year capital improvement time frame (see correspondence below) to the end of the Housing Element planning period. As you know, the projected 200 RHNA qualified units will be a small fraction of the total number of housing units likely to be constructed during the planning period on the Stanford campus. The majority of housing production will be dorm units, which do not qualify as housing units for RHNA purposes. To illustrate this point, out of the 529 housing units planned for construction within the next three to five years, only approximately 75 of these units will qualify as RHNA housing units. We sincerely hope, a transfer in this amount will be satisfactory to Palo Alto and is sufficient to avoid a formal ABAG RHNA appeal process. If so, we’re prepared to make our position known to ABAG in whatever form would be most helpful to Palo Alto. Please let us know. Thank you. Kirk Kirk Girard, P.E. Planning Manager County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Street East Wing, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 408-599-5772 kirk.girard@pln.sccgov.org Attachment B DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B 2 From:McNair, Whitney [mailto:wmcnair@stanford.edu] Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2013 9:26 PM To:Girard, Kirk Cc:Carter, Charles S; Gonzalez, Nash; Phillips, William T; Palter, Catherine Subject:RE: City of Palo Alto RHNA allocation appeal Kirk, Stanford University supports the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara in their efforts to come to agreement about the transfer of units from the City to the County for the 2014-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) planning period. Stanford has no objections to a transfer of units as long as it does not change Stanford’s entitlements under the 2000 General Use Permit or provide new or changed conditions or requirements relating to these entitlements. The 2014 Stanford University Capital Plan (Cap Plan) includes a plan for construction of three new housing projects. No further housing projects are being contemplated at this time. The Cap Plan proposes construction of 528 student units and 1 faculty/staff unit in the following projects: ·Manzanita (125 undergrad units, 1 grad unit, 2 visiting scholar units, and 1 faculty/staff unit) ·Lagunita (200 undergrad units) ·Schwab expansion (200 grad student housing units) The design of the Schwab expansion is in the preliminary stages. The unit design may be similar to the existing Schwab Residential Center, whereby two units share one kitchen, or it may be designed as individual studios. The unit count may range between 150 –200 units. Conservatively, there may be 150 units designed so that two units share one kitchen for a total of 75 RHNA qualified units. Manzanita has 1 faculty/staff unit, for a total of 76 RHNA qualified units proposed in the Cap Plan. The remainder of the units are being designed as dorm rooms with a common kitchen facility, which are group quarters. No further housing projects are proposed at this time. I hope this information helps you in your discussions with the City of Palo Alto. Please let me know if you need any further information. Sincerely, Whitney Whitney McNair, AICP, LEED AP |Associate Director STANFORD UNIVERSITY |Land Use and Environmental Planning 3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200 | Palo Alto, CA 94304 (650) 721-2749 –office | (650) 799-4380 –mobile | wmcnair@stanford.edu From:Girard, Kirk [mailto:kirk.girard@pln.sccgov.org] Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2013 4:55 PM To:McNair, Whitney Cc:Carter, Charles S; Gonzalez, Nash Subject:RE: City of Palo Alto RHNA allocation appeal Hi Whitney, Supervisor Simitian expressed his interest in a practical outcome for the County, Stanford and Palo Alto. His views seem to reinforce an approach we had discussed earlier where a Palo Alto-to-County RHNA transfer would be no greater than DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B 3 the number of “qualified” housing units reasonably expected to be constructed on unincorporated Stanford lands during the Housing Element planning period (2012 to 2022). By “qualified,” I’m referring to Housing and Community Development (HCD) definitions for housing units (bedrooms w/kitchen) and the classification of the units by RHNA affordability level. We have discussed our position with Palo Alto staff that we cannot accept a RHNA transfer of very-low or low income units. As you know, the Stanford General Use Permit (GUP) allows Stanford to provide affordable housing unit on the Stanford campus or make an appropriate cash payment in-lieu of providing the housing unit. In-lieu cash payments provide funding for affordable housing within a six- mile radius of the Stanford campus in surrounding local government jurisdictions. HCD rules preclude us from “counting” affordable units constructed with in-lieu funds outside of Santa Clara County’s jurisdiction. Even though the in-lieu program does not result in “countable” units within the County, it has been very successful in creating affordable housing. We don’t want to disrupt the in-lieu program and we don’t want to place a burden on the County to plan for additional affordable units elsewhere in the County should Stanford continue to make use of the in-lieu program. We believe Palo Alto staff understands this position, even though their current ABAG RHNA appeal is silent on the affordability categories of the proposed transfer. We also have discussed with Palo Alto staff your and our interest in avoiding specifying the location of the construction of any housing units accepted with a RHNA transfer. We understand Palo Alto has based their 350 unit transfer request to ABAG on the units planned on the Quarry/Arboretum (200 units) and Quarry/El Camino (150 units) sites but we do not want to inadvertently impose limitations on the future uses of these sites or restrict the flexibility the GUP provides for locating new housing construction on the campus. Given this background, we have two fundamental questions: Does Stanford concur with the general approach that a RHNA transfer would be no greater than the number of “qualified” housing units reasonably expected to be constructed on unincorporated Stanford lands during the Housing Element planning period (2012 to 2022)? If so, what do you anticipate to be the reasonably expected number of moderate and above moderate housing units to be constructed from 2014 to 2022? If you tell us the type of housing, we can do the conversion into HCD “qualified” units. We are prepared to write a letter to ABAG effectively saying that the County of Santa Clara does not object to the Palo Alto ABAG appeal and would be willing to accept an increase in the amount of moderate and above moderate housing units equal to the anticipated construction levels you provide. I know Palo Alto is eager to get a response from the County on this issue. ABAG is scheduled to begin hearing appeals at their April 1st meeting. I understand their deliberations are likely to extend into subsequent meetings but time is now of the essence. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thank you. Kirk Kirk Girard, P.E. Planning Manager County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Street East Wing, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 408-599-5772 kirk.girard@pln.sccgov.org DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B 4 From:McNair, Whitney [mailto:wmcnair@stanford.edu] Sent:Monday, March 11, 2013 5:00 PM To:Girard, Kirk Cc:Carter, Charles S Subject:City of Palo Alto RHNA allocation appeal Kirk, I’m checking in to see how your meeting with Joe Simitian went on Thursday and to see what position the County may take on the City of Palo Alto’s appeal of their RHNA allocation. I can make myself available any time tomorrow to talk if that is easier than an e-mail update. Thanks, Whitney Whitney McNair, AICP, LEED AP |Associate Director STANFORD UNIVERSITY |Land Use and Environmental Planning 3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200 | Palo Alto, CA 94304 (650) 721-2749 –office | (650) 799-4380 –mobile | wmcnair@stanford.edu DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B 1 Regional Housing Need Allocation Appeal Review Form Jurisdiction: City of Palo Alto Appellant: H. Gregory Scharff, Mayor (represented by Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment) Date: February 12, 2013 Jurisdiction Background Information: Size (in square miles): 23.88 Effect of Methodology Factors: Households: 26,493 (2010 Census) RHNA Performance: ‐235 PDA Growth / (Share): 226 (0.17%) Employment: 525 Non‐PDA Growth / (Share): 1,763 (3.13%) Transit: 149 Subject to 40% Minimum? No 2007‐2014 RHNA: 2,860 Proposed Revision: The City of Palo Alto asserts that there was a misapplication of the RHNA methodology, that ABAG staff failed to consider information from the RHNA Factor Survey about the “housing needs generated by the presence of a university campus within a jurisdiction,” and an unforeseen change in circumstances. The City requests that 350 units be shifted from its RHNA to Santa Clara County’s RHNA. Issues/ Criteria Identified in the Appeal: Appeal Evaluation: 1. Stanford University's General Use Permit allows up to 1500 residential units to be built on Stanford lands within the RHNA housing element timeframe. Specifically, there are plans for approximately 350 planned units on two sites on Quarry Road just west of El Camino Real. While these units have not been otherwise assigned to Palo Alto, they would be very consistent with goals of SCS. 1. The RHNA is not site specific. The availability of sites for housing in Santa Clara County that would be consistent with the goals of the SCS does not indicate a misapplication of the RHNA methodology. 2. It appears to be an oversight in the designation of PDAs that these sites were not included in the Valley Transportation Authority(VTA) Cores and Corridors PDA and treated as a PDA under the RHNA methodology. The City notes that significant areas of Palo Alto, designated by VTA in the Cores and Corridors PDA have been treated as PDAs for the 2. The Palo Alto portion of the VTA Cores and Corridors PDA was not treated as a PDA for the purposes of RHNA because the City did not agree to designation of the areas as a PDA. Draft RHNA: 2,179 Requested Reduction: 350 Requested RHNA: 1,829 Attachment C DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B 2 purposes of distributing housing units, even though the City did not agree to their designation as PDAs. 3. While it is generally appropriate to focus more intense growth in cities rather than open space or rural unincorporated county areas, these sites identified are different from others in unincorporated areas because they are located in an urban area, near transit, across from shopping, and adjacent to an extensive hospital expansion; Stanford's expansion and housing to support its growth are unique among counties in the Bay Area and ABAG has previously re‐adjusted the allocation between Palo Alto and the County in previous cycles to account for this anomaly; and a tri‐party agreement between Santa Clara County, Stanford University, and the City of Palo Alto precludes the City from annexing these potential housing sites (although the sites are served by the Palo Alto Unified school district). 3. The RHNA is not site specific. The availability of sites for housing in Santa Clara County that would be consistent with the goals of the SCS does not indicate a misapplication of the RHNA methodology. Staff Recommendation: The issues cited by the City of Palo Alto do not meet the requirements of State Housing Element law, which would warrant a revision.  The information provided by the City does not demonstrate that ABAG failed to apply the RHNA methodology correctly or that an unforeseen change occurred. Staff recommends that the Appeal Committee deny the proposed revision and supports the continued efforts of the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, and Stanford University to reach an agreement about transferring the identified units prior to April 19, 2013. DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B February 12, 2013 Ms. Gillian Adams, Regional Planner Association of Bay Area Government Joseph P. Bort Metro Center P.O. Bo x 20 50 Oakland, CA 94607-4756 Ci!yof Palo Alto Office of the Mayor and City Council Re : City of Palo Alto Appeal of Adopted RHNA Methodology for the 2014-2022 Housing Cycle Dear Ms. Adams: We are in receipt of ABAG's Nove mber 15'h letter, in re spo nse to the City of Palo Alto request for a reduction to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) jurisdictional allocation for the 2014-2022 housing cycle. This letter denied the City of Palo Alto's request, briefly outlined the reasons for denial, and provided the schedule and findings necessary to appeal this determination. The required appeal template was also emailed to the City at a later date. With that in mind, pursuant to Government Code §65584.05, the purpose of this cove r letter and attached completed appeal template is to officially appeal the adopted RHNA M ethodology determination for the City of Palo Alto. The following outlines the criteria for which this appeal is based. As noted in your letter, Government Code §65584.05 provides the following grounds for appeal: 1. ABAG failed to adequately co nsider the information submitted by the City of Palo Alto in the survey ABAG "administrated in January '1012, or a significant and unforeseen 'change 'in circumstances has occurred in the City of Palo Alto that merits a revision of the information; or 2. ABAG failed to determine its share of the regional housing need in accordance with the information described in, and the methodology established pursuant to Section 65584 .04. The City of Palo Alto's "Request for Revision " letter outlined several reasons why the City of Palo Alto's housing allocation was overstated. The following appeal focuses on one of these items. The City of Palo Alto's grounds for appeal are as follows: The proposed RHNA allocation assigns 77 housing units to the County of Santa Clara (unincorporated), although Stanford University's General Use Permit with the County of Santa Clara County allows and plans for up to 1,500 residential units to be built on Stanford lands within the RHNA housing element timeframe. 1. Specifically, approximately 350 planned units on two sites on Quarry Road just west of EI Camino Real appear appropriate to include somewhere in the hou sing analysis in this timeframe (table and map attached). Indeed, there were active discussions with the property owner(Stanford University) in the recent past about housing development on those sites in connection with its current Medical Center expansion that was approved by the City in 2011. Pri n ted wilh soy-bued ink$ on 100'10 r«ycled pa pe r procen ed without chlorine. P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto. CA 94303 650.329.2477 650.328.363\ fax Attachment DDocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B Ms. Gillian Adams, Regional Planner Association of Bay Area Government Page 2 of 3 2. While the City acknowledges that these units have not been otherwise assigned to the City of Palo Alto, these two sites are proximate to EI Camino Real and the University Avenue Caltrain station, and would be highly consistent with the objectives of the SCS and sB375 . The sites are located very close to developed land located within the City's boundaries . Furthermore, this land is not protected agricultural land, and therefore should not be discounted as a suitable area for growth. 3. It appears to be an oversight in the designation of priority development areas (PDAs) that these sites were not included in the Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA's) "cores and corridors" designation and thereby treated as a PDA under the RHNA methodology (attached map). The City notes that significant areas of Palo Alto, designated by VTA in "cores and corridors," have been treated as PDAs for the purpose of distributing housing units, even though the City did not agree to their designation as PDAs. 4. Lastly, the City of Palo Alto agrees that it is generally appropriate to focus more intense growth in cities rather than on open space or rural unincorporated county areas, and to encourage annexation of unincorporated areas proximate to transit stations and corridors. The Stanford owned lands subject of this appeal present an anomaly, however, in that a) these particular lands are located in an urban area, near transit, across from a vibrant Shopping Center and adjacent to a very extensive hospital expansion; b) Stanford's expansion and housing to support its growth are unique among counties in the Bay Area and ABAG has previously re-adjusted the allocation between Palo Alto and the County in previous cycles to account for this anomaly, and c)-a-tri~party agreement between Santa Clara C-ounty ; stanford 'UniversitY,-andthe (it yo! Palo ' Alto precludes the City from annexing these potential housing sites (although the sites are served by the Palo Alto Unified school district.). For these reasons, the City believes allocations should be adjusted accordingly. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appeal the adopted RHNA Methodology for the 2014-2022 Housing Cycle and the City of Palo Alto's allocation. The required appeal template is attached. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Curtis Williams, the City's Director of Planning and Community Environment, at (650) 329 -2321 or curtis .williams@cityofpaloalto .org. Sincerely /J~ ~.l/"\---- H. Gregory Scharff MAYOR Attachments: A. Completed Appeal Template with Attachments DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B Representing Ci t y and Co unt y Governm ent s of the San Francis co Bay Area o ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS ABAG 2014-2022 Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) Appeal Request All appeal requests must be received by ABAG Februaryl8, 20l3, 5 p.m. Late submissions will not be accepted. Send requests to Gillian Adams, ABAG RegIonal Planner: GillianA@abaq.ca .aovorP.O. Box 2050. Oakland, CA 94604-2050 Date: 2/13/13 Contact: Curtis Williams Phone: 650-329-2321 APPEAL AUTHORtZED BY: Name: H. Gregory Scharff Jurisdiction: The City of Pato Alto Title: Director of Planning and Community Environment Email: curtls.wllllams@cityofpaloalto.org PLEASE CHECK BELOW: iii Mayor 0 Chair, County Board of Supervisors o City Manager 0 Chief Administrative Officer o Other: ______________ _ BASES FOR APPEAL IGovernment Code Sectton 65584 .0S(d))" [!J Misapplication of RHNA Methodology [!J Failure to Adequately Consider Information Submitted in the Survey Regarding RHNA Factors: o Exis ting or projected jobs-housing relat ionship o Sewer or water infrastru cture constraints for additional development o Availability of land suitable for urban development or for conversion to residential use o Land s protected from urban development under existing federal or state programs o County policies to preserve prime agricultural land o Distribution of household growth assumed for purposes of comparable Regional Tran sportation Plan o Market demand for housing o County-city agreements to direct growth toward incorporated areas of county o L®.of llnits contained.in assisted.housing developments o High housing cost burdens o Housing needs of farmworkers [!J Housing needs generated by the presence of a university campus within a jurisdiction [!J Significant and Unforeseen Change in Circumstances Brief De scrlptton of Basis for Appeal Request and Desired Outcome: 11'1. ~ AHAA ~1Io<o1l<lt\ ... 11 .... " ~O<I .. "U unil' '" th l CouHy 01 SonI a a. .. (uni"""'P"'aWd) .• ltOOJgh Slanford UnIY"";I,.. GMe rlllllM P.rm~ ""'"" lila Coc.n!J' or &l r>lI ca.-~ eo.,.,ly .~'''''~' 10< up '" 1.Il00 ,.okIootlol unil . '" l1li bull on Stanford Iorcr'_I'I.IUiAA"""oI~ ..... n ......... fnI "' •. I. ~""'!J'.e_ ..... ,.,.1 S!lllpIonn""""'."" ....... 1 .. onou"If)'Rood)J., .... ,oIfl eo ... "" Relll_'PP<"OP<loI. "'_ 0001 .... _1n 1111101 .. "11 ... IyoI . In "10 1 ...... "'0 (111)'.'''''' "'.P • ....,,""). _0<1.,.... ... ,...""..dloaJ ....... ,,;u, 1111 ~_'($I~clu..t....rtyIlnll1a '''''"nl_'.boul_''II_oq,monlon_II\Ii.lI1coo_,.;'''IIt.,..,.",M_CO " .. r •• pto"IoIonll1l1 ..... pp"","O<I b,hl Cil:rIn2(JII . J. ~'Ol'l. CI!\I .~ ......... _ unil ."..,..nao.bMnolho ...... ...y,.d "' ... C>!yolPr.oAl"'. '-Mo ~10 • .,.~10 '" El c.rrinol\OoI .... 111 1 UnlYonll,A..,.... C.", ..... 1110\ ""'_IIII~IghIJ~.,...,";tII'" "'*""" ....... SCSatld &el l S I1'It oIII .......... Wd • ...,. do .. ",_.-..,.rio"" IocoWd_ "a Cily"._arfeo . F-.,..,. .. Ih .. lord 10 ""'~ ~_Iord ..... """!,,, •• _ ""bo_ .... It~ It ..... ~"'_Io<O-' a .• ___ IoIlll "'~I'I".d H~ .. IIon.tp!looi!J'd~ ...... (PON)""_.Ilu .. e,.nao."'-Io""V.I,.,lrw<1>p<>1-._~.(V1I1·')·co ... _<O"II6ilr.·d .. Ig ... IIon .""I'I ... tIo/"_ •• l roll ......... RIflII .... ~ (.II.:I_"""'~ n-.C~_ ...... IgtIiIIt.Inl ........ P.IoAl"' ..... """'Wdb,VlIlIo· ........ ""~:I>ov._"~_ .. ro .... fbr".~ .. dlottl<J!lro,1 _"I U"l .... _~ ... CIf1~~"""II"'IIoI'IN ""Qtoo,;on .. roN.. ~'"-:~==~~"::: .. :..=~~=::~~~~::~~,::,n=t>!:::.~-=.,."':"~:='t~~..;~..;::.~~.=:.~'==~ .rcr~oInglo .-' •• ~_..,.q.,...........r "'"""'"'Io ... II.o,Ar ....... JSlAO,...pr--,.ro.......-l'Io_bo""-'P."'AlIo """ ... CoutII)'n~qdo.IO_,.,b'Na .'""""'*."'"<) ... ~I9_ .. __ Cl>r . eo.,.,l\'. '~I:r d o.w._t .• "" .. I 0:1 01 Polo ....... pr.a..do ..... Ci, /tom ...... .<Ins!"'" poIoooIioJ _"II oiIo. (."'-91 ..... 11 .............. ~, 1'10 POI<> No> Un __ dIorll;l.} ,00 ......... _ ..... CI!\I boI"lY •• __ "" ......... ~. List of Supporting Documentation Included In Submittal: 1. Relevant Pages from Stanford University General Use Permit (June 2011) 2. VTA Cores, COrridors, and Station Areas Map for Palo Alto 3. __________________________________________________________ __ ·Per Government Code Section 65584.05(d), appeals to the draft RHNA can only be made by jurisdictions that have prevIously filed a revision request and do not accept the revIsion request findings made by ABAG. DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B GENERAL USE PERMIT 200u ANNUAL REPORT No. 10 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PLANNING OFFICE STANFORD UNIVER F�Si��i%si; fll.^"y""' -'tliVltf!>+jf�t?:.•�'q .�.. :�- � -, '•i.:, ;:`v'a i:�a:!:=...1`�=i���l. JUMe 2011 STANFORD UNIVERSITY I GENERAL USE PERMIT 2000 I ANNUAL REPORT No.10 Non- Building Cap Category Remaining 1989 GUP Square Foolage Temporary Surge Space Childcarel Community Center Housing Annual Report II. Development Overview TABLE 2 ANNUAL REPORT 10 OTHER SPACE CAPS -PROJECT SUMMARY Maximum Allowable Square Footage 92 ,229 50,000 40,000 ASA Building Cumulative Cumulative Total Balance Building Permits Approved Permit Approved (sq. ft.) Building Permits Remaining (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) in Previous ARs Approved (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) 0 0 92 ,229 92 ,229 0 0 0 28,085 28,085 21,915 7,895 0 27,947 28,144 11,856 The 2000 OUP allows for the construction of 3,018 net new housing units on campus, with allocations for faculty and staff, graduate and undergraduate students, and postdoctoral and medical students as shown in Table 3. The OUP identified potential housing sites for students, staff and faculty (Map 3, Appendix A). As with academic/academic support building space, the housing units will be distributed among the 10 devel()pment districts (~ee Table 3). Housing may also be developed on sites other than those shown on Map 3, and the estimated distribution of the type and location of housing among development districts may deviate from the locations described in the 2000 OUP pursuant to 2000 OUP Conditions F.2, F.3, and F.4. As explained under 2000 GUP Condition A (A. I.c, A. I.d, and A.3.b), the square footage of housing units constructed is tracked but does not count toward the 2000 GUP building area cap (see Table C-2, Appendix C). During the AR 10 reporting period, two housing projects (Olmsted Terrace Faculty Homes -File Number 9923, and Olmsted Road Staff Rental Housing -File Number 9792) were approved. For purposes of the housing linkage requirement, as provided in GUP Condition F .8, the housing requirement is counted at the time of the framing inspection. The Olmsted Terrace Faculty Homes and Olmsted Road Staff Rental Housing projects were framed during this reporting period . In addition, two student housing renovation projects resulted in a slight change in housing units. 9 June 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B Annual Report 10 FIGURE 4 Distribution of Residential Development 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 - 200 a -, Air G AMP AMP 4�p `h • Cumulative Framing Inspection Approved Units (1,358) N ASA Approved but Not Framed Units (0) 1Allocation of Additional Units (3,018) As illustrated in Figure 4, the cumulative total of approved units under the 2000 GUP allocation is 1,358 units. The Olmsted Road Staff Rental Housing includes the construction of 25 units of staff housing — 17 single family detached homes and four duplexes. The Olmsted Terrace Faculty Homes entails the construction of 39 single-family detached houses on lots ranging in area from 3,200 to 7,500 square feet each. The three- and four -bedroom homes will range from approximately 1,930 to 2,400 gsf, and include a two -car garage and a designated guest parking space. June 2011 (0 Annual Report I I. Development Overview TABLE 3 ANNUAL REPORT 10 DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ASA Final Framing Allowable 2000 Approved Inspection Development GUPNet Units but Not Pa,t Approved District l Additional Unit' Yet Framed CumulaHve2 Unit, Cumulative West Campus Stable Site 372 Faculty/Staff 0 0 0 0 Lathrop 0 0 0 0 0 Fo ot hill s 0 0 0 0 0 Lagunlta 195 Faculty/Staff Drlving Range 367 Graduate 0 0 0 0 Searsville Block 125 Undergradl Ma yfi eld /Row Grad Campu, Cen ter 35 2 Gra d.ot. 0 35 1 0 351 Quarry Quorry/Arboretum 200 Postdoe 0 0 0 0 Ouarrv/EI Camino 150 Postdoc Arboret u m 0 0 0 0 0 DAPER& Admini strative 0 0 0 0 0 E a st C ampu, -Manzanita -Escondido Village 100 Undergradl -Crothers Graduate 2 -Olmsted Rd Rental 1,043 .Graduate 1-25 --Olmsted Terrace 75 Faculty/Staff 39 Ea,t Campu, Sublota l 0 937 66 1003 San Juan Lower Frenchman's 18 Faculty/Staff Gerona 12 Faculty/Staff 0 0 4 4 Mayfield 9 Faeulty/Staff 717 Dolores Sa n Juan Sub total 0 0 4 4 T otal (l ,OI8 All oW eU' 0 1288 70 11,358 1. Housing may be developed on other sites and development may vary from the estimated distribution with regard to citller tllC type (student, postdoctoral, or faculty/stafi) or amount of housing on the site (2000 aup Conditions F.2, F.3, and FA). Redistribution occurred in AR 6. 2. Cumulative totals include results from previous annual reports. Sec Appendix C and/or previous annual reports for more delailerl background on these cumulative totals. Annual Report 11 June 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B Appendix A Reference Maps C L) A Manzanita B Mayfield/Row Escondido Village Escondido Village E Escondido Village F Driving Range G Searsville Block H QuarrylArboretf m # QuorrylEl Camino Lower Frenchman's I Gerona N Mayfield 0 Stable Sites O G F B N L K Faculty /Staff (Low Density) IN Faculty /Staff (Moderate Density) CI Undergraduate! Graduate Students Source: Stanford University Genera/ Use Permit, December 2000 MAP A-3 POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES Fiscal Year Annual Report I (2000 -0 I) Annual Report 2 (2001-02) A nnual Re port 3 (2002-03) A nnual Report 4 _(2003-04) A nnual Report 5 (2004-05) Annual Report 6 (2005-2006) Annual Report 7 (2006-2007 ) Annual Report 8 (2007-2008) Annual Report 9 (2008 ~009) Annual Report 10 (2009-200 I 0) KEY TO MAP C-2 Appendix C Cumulutive Projects ANNUAL REPORT 1 THROUGH ANNUAL REPORT 8 CUMULATIVE HOUSING PROJECTS M ap Housing S quare A nnual No.* Proj ect Units Footage Units I Mirrielees -Phase I 102 0 102 2 Escondido Village Studios 5 & 6 281 139,258 3 M irrie lees -Ph ase II 50 0 331 Branner Student Housing Kitchen 0 1,596 N/A None N/A N/A 0 N/A None N/A N/A 0 N/A None N/A N/A 0 Dre ll l-iouse (convers ion to -I (-906) academic) 5 7 9 Alvarado I 3,258 (-8) Casa Zapata RF Unit 4 Replacement -8 (-691 ) None N/A N/A 0 5 Munger Graduate Housing 349 267,683' 349 5 Munger Graduate Housing 251 192,517 Schwab Din ing S torage N/A 464 511 6 Bl ackwe lder/Qui lle ,,-Dorms 130 N/A 7 C rothers Renovation 133 N/A 8 717 D olores 4 0 9 CrOlhors 2 0 10 Olmsled Terrace Facully. Housing 39 103,127 70 II Olmsled Staff Ren ta l HOll,inll 2 5 53 ,83 1 Arrillag. Fam i ly Dining Com mons N/A 2 8,260 Cumulative Net Contribution toward 2000 GUP Housing 1,358 788,397 1,358 Uni ts "'Map C-2 illustrates the locations of housing projects that add more than one unit. Individual housing projeets are not shown on Map C-2. I. Based on an average of767 square feet per unit constructed for the Munger Graduale Student Housing projecl. C-s DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B Appendix C Cumulative Projects • Palo Alto Menlo Park Blanlard Shoppinp Conte! j313 r'' com 46 46%S I t t .1't (Cyr rf') • 4 ,,ti _ .w I rxr4'a / 71 �. •' •V �� �i • 4 tiPs qp ,. 4 f 1 ` - `C 4r 4 �' .era ' 4 I i•ti Itiiaitywik ar 0..- 7 A tilt. ,CI t it • ./� I—.:Zir Fit,..'1. N; g It Street ' 1 '. ih-�. P� ; fi � �" y, •. rim M J ,l, i._,3 gorMI e f �,►il- r"`�► r0 • : ,� qua, +�� :.:1:: V. Liiglrufin 1 / '' •{;.j 'I•, •0y ▪ r▪ • et r ti 1 Golf Cow.. 0 1.000 �r— 2.000 Feet Stanford Utnrersey Land the & Cnriromxnlal plann q. • Last ltpdaI d; rt0ew.y l7,101 -9 • 14.11 1'N • n � fit if l,a �, ` '�q'• r.' , �t , �ecla�NylfsM� ,: i' , i� � � 1( � er'r'+ \ Ir l.. "' 1 •` .i i . 1I4oualne �,•r..,l fp.' ' • C. ' 1 rJA • y� M N 41/4:4 Rjt 4t le Is •r. •. yl• y 1 `"'•, �� d .{�' a r'r� 1 t' we 1 a ea �••rra MAP C-2 CUMULATIVE HOUSING PROJECTS Doc S' C 11.J. u Ign I IVCIVl/C - r+. 1,4 r2nr•r1 a 167r A An A194 OCCO7560A651D ocus V 1k)r t.trutr39j Map Legend Neighborhood Features 11 City or County Administration in" College/University Ja K -I2 School Fi Child Care Facility Community Facility © Cultural Center • Police Station SUM Flre Station Ilk Library r.� Post Office la Hospital Resldentlol Healthcore Focillty i Medical Clinic ▪ Grocery Store or Supermarket ▪ Specialty Food or Formers Morket Public Ttansportotlon 10 • 20 Htreule Bus Service Santa Clara VTA �- Stanford Marguerite Shuttle -- Dumbarton Express Caltraln Rall Station Bicycle Network off street path • " • an -street, striped lone .., on -street route identified by sign/stencil Potential Priority Derelopmenl Area 'T' 3 -'Inside PDA ▪ '' W4,1, Outside PDA Proteoled Open Space SoutcP: Association of Flay Area Oorernmenls. Street Bore Mop O 2006 Tel (Altos. Inc. All rights reserre0 ABAO OISO)vly 2008 Scale: Nles I I 1 I 0 0.125 025 0.5 Kilometers 0 0.25 0.5 a- r:u �a ��/' 4^i'Y!rC •. �____ r" !� Vii; \ 1 '�['4 "�,' t.4 Cali fonlaAve r04.'S_ «x' 4.•5, Ca11�aI� +tatio� VTA Cores, Corridors, and Station Atreas:Palo Al Overview OF) DocuSign Envelope ID: F2DC9531-167F-464D-A194-8FF37560A65B Legend VTA Cores, Corridors & Stations (Palo Alto) Palo Alto California Avenue PDA City Jurisdictional Limits IR. Transportation Stations renaA 20124667 11:45:51 CPA PDADkunapclpc5lyloladminlPartanaNmere.mCo) rrre*****e*aa.SPapM1rnsor...rm i nonlyae.ae availoble sources The City d Polo Alm mammy no nstmmbilrty for any amo,* O{784 W 2012 City OP** Mo Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: F2DC9531167F464DA1948FF37560A65B Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: Direction to Staff Regarding 2023-31 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Appeal Source Envelope: Document Pages: 23 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Madina Klicheva AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 Madina.Klicheva@CityofPaloAlto.org IP Address: 24.7.54.36 Record Tracking Status: Original 5/18/2021 11:19:26 AM Holder: Madina Klicheva Madina.Klicheva@CityofPaloAlto.org Location: DocuSign Security Appliance Status: Connected Pool: StateLocal Storage Appliance Status: Connected Pool: City of Palo Alto Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Jonathan Lait Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org Interim Director Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Uploaded Signature Image Using IP Address: 99.88.42.180 Sent: 5/18/2021 11:21:31 AM Viewed: 5/18/2021 11:22:35 AM Signed: 5/18/2021 11:22:44 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign Ed Shikada Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org Ed Shikada, City Manager City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 5/18/2021 11:22:49 AM Viewed: 5/18/2021 11:41:22 AM Signed: 5/18/2021 11:42:16 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 5/18/2021 11:21:31 AM Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Certified Delivered Security Checked 5/18/2021 11:41:22 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 5/18/2021 11:42:16 AM Completed Security Checked 5/18/2021 11:42:16 AM Payment Events Status Timestamps