The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-08-15 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet City of Palo Alto Page 1 =================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26====================== Thursday, August 15, 2013 REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ROLL CALL: Board members: Staff Liaison: Clare Malone Prichard (Chair) Russ Reich, Senior Planner Lee Lippert (Vice Chair) Alexander Lew Staff: Randy Popp Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate Amy French, Chief Planning Official Clare Campbell, Planner Elena Lee, Senior Planner PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows:  Announce agenda item  Open public hearing  Staff recommendation  Applicant presentation – Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board.  Public comment – Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) minutes depending on large number of speakers per item.  Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff, and comments  Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes  Close public hearing  Motions/recommendations by the Board  Final vote ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Architectural Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. July 18, 2013 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AGENDA City of Palo Alto Page 2 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. STUDY SESSION: 1. 500 University Avenue [13PLN-00112]: Request by Thoits Bros. LLC for Study Session Review of revised architectural concepts for a new three-story 26,806 square foot commercial building with below grade parking, replacing the existing one-story commercial building, which received a Preliminary Architectural Review in a public hearing on May 16, 2013. 2. Review of Draft New Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus): The draft ordinance implementing Government Code Section 65915, reviewed and recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission, is scheduled for Council consideration August 19, 2013. This is the ARB’s opportunity to learn of and discuss the proposed ordinance and menu of concessions associated with the provision of affordable housing units. CONSENT CALENDAR: 3. 180 El Camino Real (Stanford Shopping Center) [13PLN-232]: Request by Viking Sign Installations for Architectural Review of the replacement of two internally illuminated wall signs for a restaurant use (PF Changs). PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: POSTPONED BUSINESS: 4. 405 Curtner Avenue [13PLN-00098]: This multi-family residential project was reviewed during the ARB public hearing on August 1, 2013 and the review was continued to this date; however, the applicant has requested that the review be postponed to the special ARB meeting of August 29, 2013. 5. 3159 El Camino Real (13PLN-00040]: This Site and Design Review project was reviewed during the ARB public hearing on August 1, 2013 and was continued to this date; however, the applicant has requested that the review be postponed to the special ARB meeting of August 29, 2013. NEW BUSINESS: Minor Review: 6. 537 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00268]: Request by Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects for a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow the proposed roof-top canopy to exceed the 40 foot height limit by 11'-6" on a property within the CD-C(P) zone district. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Major Review: 7. 636 Waverley Street [13PLN-00262]: Request by Hayes Group Architects for a Major Architectural Review for the demolition of a one-story, 1,406 sq. ft. office building and construction of a new, 10,328 sq. ft., four-story mixed use building with commercial uses on the first and second floors and two residential units on the third and fourth floors, on a property within the CD-C(P) zoning district. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 8. Election of subcommittee member REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. SUBCOMMITTEE: Members Randy Popp and member to be appointed during Item 8 9. 1845 El Camino Real [12PLN-00124]: Request by The Hayes Group, on behalf of 1845 ECR LLC, for Major Architectural Review of a new 5,489 square foot three story mixed use commercial/residential condominium project. The subcommittee shall address the following:  Provide an additional car parking lift.  Provide a final Landscape Plan to include hardscape and irrigation.  Refine the horizontal line at the front stair tower.  Reduce the sloping of the roof at the stair tower and mechanical equipment area.  Provide for an additional bike rack in the front of the property and look for possible relocation of the bike lockers near the driveway entrance. STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: Project Description: Landscape & hardscape improvements within the grounds of the religious facility Applicant: Linn Winterbotham Address: 600 Colorado Avenue [13PLN-00271] Approval Date: 7/30/13 Request for hearing deadline: 8/12/13 Project Description: Addition of two non-illuminated wall signs for Hassett Hardware, while maintaining the existing "ACE" corner wall sign, in the RT zone district Applicant: Harry Singh Address: 875 Alma Street [13PLN-00231] Approval Date: 8/7/13 Request for hearing deadline: 8/21/13 ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 650.329.2550 (voice) or by e-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956.Recordings. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 329-2571. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Architectural Review Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning and Community Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 during normal business hours. CITY OF PALO ALTO Agenda Date:·· To: From: Subject: 2 Architectural Review :Soard August 15, 2013 Architectural Review Board Amy French, Chief Planning Official Staff Report Department: Planning and Community Environment . Review of Draft New Chapter 18.15 <Residential Densitv Bonus): The draft ordinance implementing Government Code Section 65915, reviewed and recommended by the Planning. and Transportation Commission (PTC), is· scheduled for Council consideration August 19, 2013. This is the ARB' sopportunity to learn of and discuss the proposed ordinance and menu of concessions assQciated with the provision of affordable housing units. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review the attached, proposed ordinance, ask questions of staff, and comment on the proposal that is recommended by the PTC and scheduled for Council consideration. BACKGROUND The Planning Transportation Commission (PTC) has held three public hearings on this matter, on October 19,2011, January 9, 2013 and March 5-, 2013. Minutes and reports are attached to this cover memo. The City Council is scheduled to consider the ordinance, new zoning code Chapter 18.15, on August 19,2013. The Council and ARB are jointly meeting earlier that evening and the topic of Density Bonus Law Concessions is listed as a potential topic for discussion. The Council is interested in understanding how zoning code regulations may influence building design, generally,and may wish to discuss this topic generally with the ARB during the joint meeting. DISCUSSION Section 18.15.050 of the proposed ordinance deals with Development Concessions and Incentives. Item ( c) sets forth those concessions "deemed not to have' a specific adverse impact as defined in Section 18.15.090 (b)(ii)". The concessions listed in this section include setbacks, 13PLN-00211 Page 1 of3 height, FAR, daylight plane, site coverage, and reduction of private and public open space. Below is an excerpt o{section item (6) that describes the allowable concessions: (i) Up to a SO% average reduction of the side yard setback requirement if the design is consistent with the design guidelines, unless adjacent to R-I, R-2, RMD and other low density residential zones; (ii) -Up to a SO% average reduction of the front yard setback requirements so long as setback is consistent with the design guidelines, unless adj acent to R-l, R-2, RMD and other low density residential zones; (iii) Up to a SO% average reduction of the rear yard setback requirements so long as the setback is consistent with the design guidelines, unless adjacent to R- 1, R-2, RMD and other low density residential zones; (iv) A percentage increase in the height limit equal to the Density Bonus percentage for which the Development is eligible if necessary to accommodate the Restricted Affordable Units, with a maximum increase of one foot per Affordable Unit, and no event to exceed fifty (SO) feet; (v) Up to fifty percent (SO%) increase in the Floor Area Ratio (F AR) or up to the square footage of the Restricted Affordable Units, whichever is less. For a mixed use project, the applicant can elect to receive this FAR bonus for the entire project or for just the residential portion of the project. Any FAR . bonus under this section shall be consistent with the applicable height requirements; (vi) Reduction in daylight plane requirements not to exceed SO% of the length of the adjacent lot line; (vii) Reduction in site coverage requirement; (viii) Reduction/in private; or (ix) Reduction in public open space; or This ordinance section suggests that special setbacks are not eligible. for the setback concessions. Special Setbacks are found on some portions of the following major arterials within the City: El Camino Real, Middlefield Road, Page Mill Road, Churchill A venue, Embarcadero, Guinda, Channing, L,?uis, Colorado, Loma Verde, West Bayshore, Stanford Avenue, Hanover Street, Hanson Way, Hillview Avenue, Sand Hill Road,Califomia Avenue along College Terrace, Ash Street, Park Boulevard, East and West Meadow Drives, Charleston and Arastradero Roads, San Antonio, Fabian, Commercial, Transport, and Industrial, Alma Street, and on some blocks of downtown streets, such as Hamilton Avenue, Bryant Street, and Ramona Street). 13PLN-00211 Page 2 of3 This ordinance section also notes that 100% affordable housing allows the opportunity to exceed these limits if Council fmds that such Concessions or Incentives are required to provide for affordable housing costs. ATTACHMENTS A. Proposed New Chapter 18.15 B. PTC Excerpt Minutes of March 5 C. PTC Report of March 5, 2013 D. PTC Report of January 9,2013 13PLN -00211 Page 3 of3 Not Yet Approved. Ordinance No. --- Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting New Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Government, Code Section 65915 The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN ascfollows: Attachment A SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares as follows: A. The State Density Bonus Law (Section 65915 of the Government Code) was first adopted in 1979. The law allows developers who offer affordable units in their developments a density bonus above what the zoning ordinance would typically allow. Originally, developers received a density bonus of 25% if they met the density bonus requirements. B. In 2004, the State Legislature passed SB 1818, which significantly amended Section 65915 of the Government Code. The significant changes to the law, effective on January 1, 2005, included: • A higher maximum market-rate unit density bonus of 35% for a lower percentage of affordable units provided; • A sliding scale of market-rate density bonus percentages from 20%-35% depending on the percentage of affordable units provided; • Provision for up to three (3) development concessions or incentives, depending on the percentage of affordable units provided; • Granting the developer a density bonus if they donate land for very low income housing; and • Required jurisdictions to implement Density Bonus law through local codes. C. In the past, the City has applied the Density Bonus law on an ad hoc basis to both market rate and affordable developments. Palo Alto Family Apartments, located at 801 Alma Street and developed by Eden Housing, is a 50 un it affordable rental development. Eden requested concessions to encroach into the required setbacks, exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and to not provide private useable open space. The development at 195 Page Mill Road also requested concessions to allow residential uses in the General Manufacturing (GM) zoning district and to exceed the maximum FAR in return for providing 17 affordable housing units (20% of the total units). D. The 2007-2014 .Q.f.a.ft...Housing Element Update includes a draft program (Program 3.1.10) requiring that a density bonus ordinance be adopted that is consistent 1 I 130102 jb o131030, ______________________ --!.:.R::::;:.ev.:..::.. J.!::!.ulyL!.2=6,~2=013 Not Yet Approved with Government Code 65915. Staff anticipates that density bonus will be an im portant tool to help the City accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. SECTION 2. Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: Sections: 18.15.010 18.15.020 18.15.030 18.15.040 18.15.050 18.15.060 18.15.070 18.15.080 18.15.090 18.15.100 18.15.010 Chapter 18.15 Residential Density Bonus Purpose Definitions Density Bonuses Development Standards for Affordable Units Development Concessions and Incentives Waiver/Modification of Development Standards Child Care Facilities Application Requirements Review Procedures Regulatory Agreement Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to: (a) Comply with the state density bonus law under California Government Code section 65919. (b) Establish procedures for implementing state density bonus requirements as set forth in California Government Code Section 65915, as amended. (c) Facilitate the development of affordable housing consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan .Housing Element. 18.15.020 Definitions Whenever the following terms are used in this Chapter, they shall have the meaning established by this section: 2 I 130102jb o131o3o ______________________ ..:..:.:Re::..:..:v.:...::!Ju~ly..::.26!:!1...!~20~13 Not Yet Approved (a) "Affordable Rent" means monthly rent, including a reasonable allowance for utilities and all fees for housing services, for rental Restricted Affordable Units reserved for Very Low or Lower Income Households, that does not exceed the following: (i) Very Low Income: 50 percent of the area median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for presumed household size, multiplied by 30 percent and divided by 12. (ii) Lower Income: 60 percent of the area median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for presumed household size, multiplied by 30 percent and divided by 12. (b) "Affordable Sales Price" means the maximum sales price at which Very Low, Lower and Moderate Income Households can qualify for the purchase of Restricted Affordable Units as set forth in the City of Palo Alto's Below Ma.rket Rate Housing Program. The sales price shall be considered affordable only if it is based on a reasonable down payment, and monthly housing payments (including interest, principal, mortgage insurance, property taxes and assessments, fire and casualty insurance, homeowners association fees, property maintenance and repairs, and a reasonable allowance for utilities), all as determined by the City, that are equal to or less than: (i) Very Low Income: 50 percent of the area median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for presumed household size, multiplied by 30 percent and divided by 12. (ii) Lower Income: 70 percent of the area median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for presumed household size, multiplied by 30 percent and divided by 12. (iii) Moderate Income: 110 percent of the area median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for presumed household size, multiplied by 30 percent and divided by 12. (c) "Applicant" means any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or any entity or combination of entities who seeks Development permits or approvals from the City of Palo Alto. (d) "Approval Authority" means the person or body that is authorized to approve a Development as specified in the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. (e) "Below Market Rate Housing Program" means Chapter 18.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Administrative Guidelines for the Below Market Rate Program. 3 I 130102 jb 0131030 ______________________ ---=-:.Re=.v:...::..; Ju"'-!.;IYL...!:2:.=6.-=20=13 Not Yet Approved (f) "Child Care Facility" means a child day care facility other than a family day care home, including, but not limited to, infant centers, preschools,extended day care facilities, and school age child care centers. (g) "Concession or Incentive" as used interchangeably means such regulatory concessions as specified in Government Code Section 65915{k) to include: (i) A reduction of site Development Standa.rds or architectural design requirements which exceed the minimum applicable building standards approved by the State Building Standards Commission pursuant to Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback, coverage, and/or parking requirements which result in identifiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reductions; (ii) Allowing mixed use development in conjunction with the proposed residential development, if nonresidential land uses will reduce the cost of the residential project and the nonresidential land uses are compatible with the residential project and existing or planned development in the area where the Development will be located; and (iii) Other regulatory Concessions proposed by the applicant or the City which result in identifiable financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. (h) II Density Bonus" means a density increase over the Maximum Residential Density granted pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 and this Ordinance. (i) II Density Bonus Units" means those dwelling units granted pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter which exceed the otherwise Maximum Residential Density for the development site. (j) "Development" means all developments pursuant to a proposal to construct or place five (5) or more additional dwelling units on a lot or contiguous lots including, without limitation, a planned unit development, site plan, subdivision, or conversion of a non residential building to dwelling units. (k) "Development Standard" means a site or construction condition such as a height limitation, a setback, or a floor-area ratio, that applies to a Development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan] charter, or other City condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation. A "site and construction condition" is a development regulation or law that specifies the physical development of a site and buildings on the site in a Development. 4 I 130102 jb 0131030 ___________ ----------__ ...:..:R:::;..:ev:..:...:. J:..::::.;ul:..L..Y ~26:.w' 2~01:::.::!3 Not Vet Approved (I) "Discretionary Permit" means any permit issued for the Development which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation from the Approval Authority, including but not limited to conditional use permits, variances, site plans, design review, planned development permits, general and specific plan approvals and amendments, zoning amendments, and tentative and parcel maps. (m) "Lower, Very Low, or Moderate Income" means annual income of a household that does not exceed the maximum income limits for the 'income category, as adjusted for household size, applicable to Santa Clara County, as published and periodically updated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Sections 50079.5, SOlOS, or 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code. (n) "Maximum Residential Density" means the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in the Development by the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance at the time of application, excluding the provisions of this Chapter. If the Development is a planned community zone, the Maximum Residential Density shall be determined on the basis of the Comprehensive Plan and the maximum density of the previous zone designation. If the maximum density allowed by the Zoning Ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed by the Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Element density shall prevail. (0) "Non-Restricted Unit" means all dwelling units within a Development excluding the Restricted Affordable Units. (p) "Qualifying'Mobilehome Park" means a mobilehome park that limits reSidency based on age requirements for housing older persons pursuant to Section 798.76 and 799.5 of the Civil Code. (q) "Qualifying Resident" means senior citizens or other persons eligible to reside in a Senior Citizen Housing Development or Qualifying Mobilehome Park. (r) "Regulatory Agreement" means a recorded and legally binding agreement between an applicant and the City to ensure that the requirements of this Chapter are satisfied. The Regulatory Agreement, among other things, shall establish: the number of Restricted Affordable Units, their size, location, terms and conditions of affordability,and production schedule. (s) "Restricted Affordable Unit" means a dwelling unit within a Development which will be available at an Affordable Rent or Affordable Sales Price for sale or rent to Very low, Lower or Moderate Income households. (t) "Senior Citizen Housing Development" means a Development consistent with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code Section 12900 et. seq., including 12955.9 in particularL which has been "designed to meet the physical and social 5 I 130102 jb 0131030 ______________________ ---'-'Re~v"_"'. J.=.:.,uIYz...:;2=6,....=2=013 Not Vet Approved needs of senior citizens," and which otherwise qualifies as "housing for older personsll as that phrase is used in the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-430) and implementing regulations (24 CFR, part 100, subpart E), and as that phrase is used in California Civil Code Section 51.2 and 51.3.1 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 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 percent (10%) of the total dwelling units of the Development as Restricted Affordable Units affordable to Lower Income Households. 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; 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. 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; or (iii) A Senior Citizen Housing Development; or (iv) A Qualifying Mobilehome Park. (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, in accordance with the requirements of this Section and Government Code Section 65915, at least 10 percent (10%) of the total dwelling units in a common interest development as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351 for 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, a Development will receive an additional one percent (1%) density bonus up to thirty-five percent (35%) of the Maximum Residential Density. 6 I 130102 jb 0131030 ______________________ ---'-'R=ev.!..:!. J=uIY.L...!2=6'L!!:2=013 Not Yet Approved (c) No additional Density Bonus shall be authorized for a Senior Citizen Development or Qualifying Mobilehome Park beyond the Density Bonus authorized by subsection (a) of this Section. (d) 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; howev~r, 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) 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. Density bonuses from more than one category may not be combined. In no case shall a Development be entitled to a Density Bonus of more than thirty-five percent (35%). (f) 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 fraction shall be rounded to the next larger integer. (g) Any Restricted Affordable Unit provided pursuant to the City's Below Market Rate Housing Program shall Het-be included when determining the number of Restricted Affordable Units required to qualify for a Density Bonus or other entitlement under this Chapter. Howeverln addition, the payment of a housing impact or in lieu fee shall not qualify for a Density Bonus or other entitlement under this Chapter. (h) 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. (i) Notwithstanding any provision of this Chapter, all Developments must satisfy all applicable requirements of the City's Below Market Rate Housing Program, which may impose requirements for Restricted Affordable Units in addition to those required to receive a Density Bonus or Concessions. 7 I 130102jb o131o3o ______________________ ---=..:.Re=-=-v~. J~uIVL.!:2=6,c...:::.20::::.=13 Not Yet Approved Table 1 summarizes the density bonus provisions described in this Section. Table 1 Density Bonus Summary Table Additional Percentage Bonus for of Restricted Each 1% Units Minimum Percentage Increase in Required for Percentage of of Density Restricted Maximum Restricted Affordable Restricted Bonus Affordable 35% Density Units or Category Affordable Units Granted Units Bonus Very Low Income 5% 20% 2.50% 11% Lower Income 10% 20% 1.50% 20% Moderate Income 10% 5% 1% 40% Senior Citizen Housing 100% 20% ------------ Qualifying Mobile Park 100% 20% ------------ 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 (a) Restricted Affordable Units shall be constructed concurrently with Non- Restricted Units unless both the City and the applicant agree within the Regulatory Agreement to an alternative schedule for development. (b) Moderate Income Restricted Affordable Units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group for a minimum period of 59 years (or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program). Very Low and Lower Restricted Affordable Units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group for a period of 30 years for both rental and for-sale units (or a longer period of time if required by a construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program). (c) In determining the maximum Affordable Rent or Affordable Sales Price of Restricted Affordable Units, the presumed household size as set forth in the City's Below Market Rate Housing Program shall be used, unless the Development is subject to different assumptions imposed by other governmental regulations. (d) Restricted Affordable Units shall be built on-site and be dispersed within the Development, except as permitted in subsection (e) of this Section. The number of bedrooms of the Restricted Affordable Units shall be equivalent to the bedroom mix of the Non-Restricted Units in the Development; except that the applicant may include a higher proportion of Restricted Affordable Units with more bedrooms. The design, appearance and general quality 8 I 130102 jb 0131030 _______________________ ----'-R'-'=-'ev'-'-', J~u!.Lly-'=-"26~, 2=0=13 Not Yet Approved of the Restricted Affordable Units shall be compatible with the design of the Non-Restricted Units in the Development. The Development shall comply with all applicable Development Standards, except those which may be modified as provided by this Chapter. (e) Circumstances may arise in which the City Council finds that the public interest would be served by allowing some or all of the Restricted Affordable Units associated with one Development to be produced and operated at an alternative development site. Where the applicant and the City form such an agreement the resulting linked developments shall be considered a single Development for purposes of this Chapter. Under these circumstances, the applicant shall be subject to the same requirements established by this Chapter for the Restricted Affordable Units to be provided on the alternative site. (f) A Regulatory Agreement, as described in Section 18.15.090, shall be made a condition of the Discretionary Permits for all Developments pursuant to this Chapter. The Regulatory Agreement shall be recorded as a restriction on the Development. The Regulatory Agreement shall be consistent with the City's Below Market Rate Housing program guidelines. 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), consistent with Government Code Section 65915(p), inclusive of handicapped and guest parking: (i) Zero to one bedroom unit: one on-site parking space; (ii) Two to three bedroom unit: two 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) 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 hoLtseholds; or at least ten percent (10%) of 9 I 130102 jb 0131030 ______________________ ------=....:.Re::=v::...::;.. Ju::::..:..IYt....:2:=6,-=20=13 Not Yet Approved the total dwelling units affordable to Moderate Income households in a common interest development. (ii) Two Concessions or Incentives for a Development that makes at least twenty percent (20%) 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. (iii) Three Concessions or Incentives for a Development that makes at least thirty percent (30%) of the total dwelling units affordable to Lower Income 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. 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% 30% Moderate Income (Common Interest Development) 10% 20% 30% Maximum Incentive(s)/Concession(s) 1 2 3 Notes: 1. Concessions or Concessions may be selected from only one category (very low, lower, or moderate) 2. No concessions or Concessions are available for land donation, or for Senior Citizen Housing Developments and Qualifying Mobilehome Parks that do not contain Restricted Affordable Units. (c) In submitting a request for Concessions or Incentives, an applicant may request the specific Concessions set forth below. The following Concessions and Incentives are deemed not to have a specific adverse impact as defined in Section 18.15.090 (b){ii). (i) Up to a 50% average reduction of the side yard setback requirement if the design is consistent with the design guidelines, unless adjacent to R-l, R-2, RMD and other low density residential zones; (ii) Up to a 50% average reduction of the front yard setback requirements so long as setback is consistent with the design guidelines, unless adjacent to R-l, R-2, RMD and other low density residential zones; 10 I 130102 jb 0131030 _______________________ ....!.:R~ev:.:..:. J~ul:.L.Y ::.::26:w, 2~0:!::::l.13 Not Yet Approved (iii) Up to a 50% average reduction of the rear yard setback requirements so long as the setback is consistent with the design guidelines, unless adjacent to R-1, R-2, RMD and other low density residential zones; (iv) A percentage increase in the height limit equal to the Density Bonus percentage for which the Development is eligible if necessary to accommodate the Restricted Affordable Units, with a maximum increase of one foot per Affordable Unit, and no event to exceed fifty (50) feet; (v) Up to fifty percent (50%) increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or up to the square footage of the Restricted Affordable Units, whichever is lessJor a mixed use project, the applicant can elect to receive this FAR bonus for the entire project or for just the residential portion of the project. Any FAR bonus under this section shall be consistent with the applicable height requirements; (vi) Reduction in daylight plane requirements not to exceed 50% of the length of the adjacent lot line; (vii) Reduction in site coverage requirement; (viii) Reduction in private; or (ix) Reduction in public open space; or (d) The setbacks referenced in this Section shall not include Special Setbacks as defined in Section 20.08.020. (e) For Developments that propose to construct one hundred percent (100%) of the dwelling units (except a manager's unit) as Restricted Affordable Units that are affordable to Very Low and/or Lower Income households, the Council may grant additional Concessions or Incentives or exceed the limits set forth in (i) to (ix) above if the Council finds that such Concessions or Incentives are required to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.3 of the Health and Safety Code and are in the interest of the public health, safety, or welfare. (f) 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 11 I 130102jb o131o3o ______________________ ------'-"Re=..:.v!.:!... Ju:::.!.JlyL.!:2~6,..=:.20~13 Not Yet Approved with the Concessions or Incentives permitted by this Chapter. The developer 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. 18.15.070 Child Care Facilities (a) When an applicant proposes to construct a Development that is eligible for a Density Bonus under Section 18.15.030 and includes a child care facility that will be located on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to, the Development, the City shall grant either: (i) An additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet of residential space that is equal to or greater than the square footage of the child care facility; or (ii) An additional Concession or Incentive that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the child care facility. (b) The City shall require, as a condition of approving the Development, that the following occur: (i) The child care facility shall remain in operation for a period of time that is as long as or longer than the period of time during which the Restricted Affordable Units are required to remain affordable pursuant to Section 18.15.040. In the event the childcare operations cease to exist, the Director of Planning and Community Environment may approve an alternative community service use for the child care facility. (ii) Of the children who attend the child care faCility, the children of Very Low, Lower and Moderate Income households shall equal a percentage that is equal to or greater than the percentage of Restricted Affordable Units in the Development that are required for Very Low, Lower and Moderate Income households pursuant to Section 18.15.030. (c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) above, the City shall not be required to provide a density bonus or a Concession or Incentive for a child care facility if it finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the community has adequate 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: 12 I 130102jb0131030 ______________________ ------=-..:.Re::::,.:.v;;..::... J;:;:.:..uIYz....:2:=6,....=.20=13 Not Yet Approved (a) An application 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) If a Concession or Incentive is requested, a brief explanation as to the actual cost reduction achieved through the Concession or Incentive and how the cost reduction allows the applicant to provide the Restricted Affordable Units. (v) If a waiver or modification is requested, 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 may include financial information if requested by the Director, providing evidence that the requested Concessions and Incentives result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. The cost of reviewing any required financial 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 financial information shall include all of the following items: / 13 I 130102jb0131030 ______________________ -----'-"Re=v.!...'::.. J!:.!.;uIYL...!:2:.!::.j6'c..=20=13 Not Yet Approved (A) rhe actual cost reduction achieved through the Concession; (B) Evidence that the cost reduction allows the applicant to provide affordable rents or affordable sales prices; and (C) Other information requested by the Planning Director. The Planning Director may require any financial information include information regarding capital costs, equity investment, debt service, projected revenues, operating expenses, and such other information as is required to evaluate the financial information; (ix) If a wa'iver or modification of a Development Standard is requested, the applicant shall provide evidence that the Development Standard for which the waiver is requested will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the Development with the Density Bonus and Concessions requested; (x) 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) 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) 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. (d) 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. (e) 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. 14 I 130102jb 0131030 _______________________ ...!.R!!;;.;ev~. J::..!::.ul!.Ly=26~1 2=0=13 Not Yet Approved 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. (a) Before approving an application for a Density Bonus, Incentive, Concession, waiver, modification or revised parking standard, the Approval Authority shall make the following findings, as applicable: (i) The Development is eligible for the Density Bonus and any Concessions, ·····-··-·-------waivers,modifie-atiens, or revisedpafking-standards requested. (ii) Any requested Concession or Incentive will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions based upon the financial analysis and documentation provided. The City finds that the Concessions and Incentives included in Section 18.50.050(c) will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual c9st reductions. (iii) If the Density Bonus is based all or in part on donation of land, a finding. that all the requirements included in Government Code Section 65915(g) have been met. (iv) If the Density Bonus, Concession or Incentive is based all or in part on the inclusion of a child care facility, a finding that all the requirements included in Government Code Section 65915{h) have been met. (v) If the Concession or Incentive includes mixed-use development, a finding that all the requirements included in Government Code Section 65915(k)(2) have been met. (vi) If a waiver or modification is requested, a finding that the Development Standards for which the waiver is requested would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the Development with the Density Bonus and Concessions permitted . . (b) 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 modification only if it makes one of the following written findings, supported by substantial evidence: (i) The Concession, Incentive, waiver or modification is not required to provide for Affordable Rents or Affordable Sales Prices; or 15 I 130102 jb 0131030 ______________________ ---'-'Re.::...:.v..:....::;. J.:.:,uIY.r.....:2::.:;:,6,!...::2=013 Not Yet Approved (ii) The Concession, Incentive, waiver or modification would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or the physical environment or on real property listed in the California Register of Historic Resources, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the Development unaffordable to Low and Moderate Income households. For the purpose of this subsection, IIspecific adverse impactll means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public ,health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the Development was deemed complete; or (iii) The Concession, Incentive, waiver or modification is contrary to state or federal-Iaw~---·· (c) 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) Applicants 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 Community Environment, who shall formulate a recommendation to the Approval Authority for final approval. (b) Following execution of the agreement by all parties, the completed Density Bonus Regulatory Agreement, or memorandum thereof, shall be recorded and the conditions filed and recorded on the Development. (c) The approval of the Regulatory Agreement shall take place prior to tentative map approval, and recordation shall take place prior to final map approval, or, where a map is not being processed, prior to Architectural Review approval. The Regulatory Agreement shall be binding to all future owners and successors in interest. (d) The Regulatory Agreement shall be consistent with the guidelines of the City's Below Market Rate Program and shall include at a minimum the following: (i) The total number of dwelling units approved for the Development, including the number of Restricted Affordable Units; (ii) A description of the household income group to be accommodated by the Restricted Affordable Units, and the standards for determining the corresponding-Affordable Rent or Affordable Sales Price; 16 I 130102 jb 0131030 ______________________ ------'-'R=ev..:..::. J..:::.:,uly......,2=6,<....:2=013 II II Not Yet Approved (iii) The location, dwelling unit sizes (square feet), and number of bedrooms of the Restricted Affordable Units; (iv) Term of use restrictions for Restricted Affordable Units of at least 59 years for Moderate Income units and at least 30 years for Low and Very Low units; (v) A schedule for completion and occupancy of Restricted Affordable Units; (vi) A description of any Concession, Incentive, waiver, modification, or revised parking standard, if any, being provided by the City; (vii) A description of remedies for breach of the agreement (the City may identify tenants or qualified purchasers as third party beneficiaries under the agreement); and (viii) Other provisions to ensure implementation and compliance with this Section. SECTION 3. CEQA The proposed Ordinance revises the requirements for granting a residential density bonus to comply with revisions to State law enacted by the Legislature through the adoption of Senate Bill 1818. Adoption of the draft density bonus codifies allowances that developers have been able to use in housing developments since 2005. Further, the revisions modify the criteria and incentives offered to qualifying developments but do not authorize construction not already permitted under the City'S existing codes. Also, it is uncertain how many project applicants will seek to utilize the provisions of State law and this Ordinance and where such projects might be located in the City. Further, each individual project will be subject to its own environmental review. Consequently, this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b )(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. 17 I 130102jb 0131030 ______________________ ------'-'R=ev-'--"" J-",-,-uIY.L..:2=6,t....::2=013 Not Yet Approved SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ArrEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Assistant City Attorney 18 Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Planning & Community Environment I 130102jb 0131030 _____________________ ---'-'-'Re'-'-'-v.-=-:Ju:.:..z.ly-=.:26=.J...!. 2=0=13 Attachment B 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 March 5, 2013 4 5 EXCERPT 6 7 Review and Recommendation to City Council to Adopt New Chapter 18.15 (Residential 8 Density Bonus) to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement 9 Government Code Section 65915 (Continued from January 9,2013) 10 11 Chair Martinez: We're going to reconvene and start right up with Item Number 2, Review and 12 recommendation to City Council on the proposed Density Bonus Ordinance. We'll start with a 13 staff report. 14 15 ___ Iim_Wong,Senior-J:>lann8r,·-Housing~Good·evening Commtssloners-;ifi)'--riame is Tim Wong and 16 I'm a Senior Planner. On January 9th the Planning Commission, the Planning and Transportation 17 Commission (PTC) first reviewed the initial draft Density Bonus Ordinance and there were a 18 number of comments made, but coming out of that meeting there were three main discussion 19 points. Number one main discussion point about the draft ordinance; the first point was about 20 requiring a pro forma. A second discussion point was quantification of concessions on the menu. 21 And lastly there was also some points made about jurisdiction oversight for these concessions. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 And so staff went back and revised the draft Density Ordinance based on PTC feedback and in regards to the requirement of pro forma, staff has revised that requirement to say that instead of requiring or will require the submittal of a pro forma, staff has revised that language to say "may require financial information." Staff feels that that requirement should be retained since per the Government code the only way to deny a concession is proof that it is not, that concession is not needed to provide affordable units or lower the affordability. So, but instead of making it mandatory staff has revised it to make it on the Director's discretion. Secondly the second item was quantification or quantifying the concessions. So staff has gone back and quantified the more popular concessions, the setback, daylight plane, and previously the height had already been quantified therefore it hadn't been touched. Some of the less popular concessions on the menu have not been quantified to hopefully make them more attractive for potential developers in the future. And lastly the last point was government or jurisdiction oversight to these concessions. In that staff responds to that comment is that through the menu of concessions and quantifying some of these concessions that is probably what the City can do in overseeing those concessions. The purpose and intent of the government code is to kind of eliminate, not eliminate, limit City oversight or jurisdiction oversight and staff feels that what is before you is probably what the City can do while meeting the purpose and intent of the code. So that concludes staffs presentation. Chair Martinez: Commissioners questions? Commissioner Alcheck? Oh, I don't know, I should ask that. Are there any members of the public who care to speak on this item? I see none. Ok. Questions, comments from Commissioners. Oh I guess we'll go with Commissioner Keller. 1 1 Commissioner Keller: Yeah, I suggested you formally open and close the public hearing just for 2 formality and then 1'11. .. 3 4 Chair Martinez: Someone might be rushing in at the last; I'm going to give them a shot at it. 5 6 Commissioner Keller: ,At least open it anyway. 7 8 Chair Martinez: Oh, ok. Let's open the public hearing. 9 10 Commissioner Keller: I, based on the fact that we had an extensive discussion on this several, not 11 very, I guess several months ago, I have only one change to the recommendation that I would 12 like to see. And that is that I brought up the issue of special setbacks. And the narrative 13 basically said that sp~cial setbacks are setbacks and therefore they're covered by what's 14 described. That was not the intent of my suggestion. My suggest!()_l! W~sthatspeciaLsetbacks 15 ~ ~~~~ma)'-~not~~be-reduced~~by~concession-ever:~~Arid~~U1Ts-iilIowssetbacks to be reduced. So I was 16 suggesting that special setbacks be excluded from allowing for concessions. And the reason for 17 that is special setbacks are situations where this contextual thing going on in a neighborhood. So 18 for example, along Alma Street there's a special 30 foot setback and that's true along a number 19 of our major residential arterials. And I think that that should be respected regardless of the 20 development with the possible exception of Alnla Village, which I didn't agree with either. But 21 essentially those special setbacks should be respected so I would like to exclude them. 22 23 Chair Martinez: I have a question about that. Are the special setbacks somewhere codified that 24 we know what they are or is that just sort of a general ternl that we apply? 25 26 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: This is Amy French, Chief Planning Official. We have a 27 map that identifies the special setbacks. They were identified on ... they're larger in general than 28 the 20 foot front yard setbacks. These are arterial streets such as Middlefield, Embarcadero and 29 they're identified through Title 19 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in reference to the map that 30 was adopted. 31 32 Chair Martinez: Ok and to our City Attorney. Are we in compliance with the State mandate if 33 we adopt such restrictions? 34 35 Cara Silver, Sr. Assistant City Attorney: Thank you Chair. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City 36 Attorney. What I would suggest if that's the Commission's intent, is to specify in the sort of 37 what we call the ministerial menu of concessions that are granted as a almost a matter of right 38 that the special, that those shall not inClude a waiver from the special setbacks. However, if we 39 were to outright prohibit any granting of some special setbacks even upon a financial finding that 40 the Density Bonus provision is designed to accommodate that could be legally problematic. 41 42 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 43 44 Commissioner Keller: I would certainly be supportive of the suggestion that Counsel has 45 recommended to us and that would implement what I would want. 46 47 Chair Martinez: Are you done? Commissioner Panelli, comments? Really? The other side? 48 Commissioner A1check. 49 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Commissioner Alcheck: I'm prepared to support this. My concern and I mentioned it last tinle was that we're sort of setting the bar even higher and in doing so creating a bigger hurdle for developers who may otherwise provide low income or affordable housing. And I guess my request would be that if staff could alert us when an applicant successfully applies for this. That would be of interest to me. Because it's my understanding that this happens very infrequently and so I'd just like to know if over the next year or so when those things happen because then we can kind of keep track of whether or not this is accomplishing I think the lofty goal of encouraging affordable,housing units. But otherwise I support the Motion. I support the making ofa Motion. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Tanaka, comments? Commissioner King. 13 Commissioner King: Let's see. I am walking into this sort of halfway through. I read the 14 minutes from last time and one of the things that was of interest to me were Commissioner 15 _~Kellees~commentsaboutthe time~limiton these. And so I guess one question; what is for a 16 family of four what is the moderate income housing limit currently? Can somebody on staff 17 advise? 18 19 Mr. Wong: Commissioner King the median income for a family of four in Santa Clara County is 20 $101,300. So for a moderate income it's about ten percent higher or $110,000-115,000 for a 21 family of four. 22 23 Conlmissioner King: Ok, thank you. And so my understanding is the State Density Bonus is a 24 mechanism for the State without funding affordable housing themselves to basically allow us, or 25 requires us to go above and beyond what we consider the reasonable entitlements for a property 26 effectively burdening the community, the neighbors, whomever, that we for whose protection we 27 set those entitlements and then that effective cost that is borne by the community and converted 28 into nl0ney for the developer as an incentive then lasts as long as the building is there. And so I 29 had asked staff and they were kind enough to respond today about that and it sounds like on the 30 low and very-low income units that there's a 30 years and that as a minimum, but their response 31 was that we can't go beyond that. But on the moderate income housing they're using 59 years, 32 staff has proposed 59 years. 33 34 To me if our goal over time is to foster affordable housing and in this case moderate affordable 35 housing, moderate income affordable housing, as we run out of more projects over time or we 36 will truly be built out then these won't get replaced. And so if the overarching goal for the 37 community is to have this anlenity then it doesn't seem logical to me to have a limit 59 years for 38 those, for that requirement. And so I guess my question is am I missing something? Why 39 wouldn't we just make that in perpetuity or as long as the building exists? And it sounds like 40 from the response today that really we're doing the 59 years for consistency and because, and I 41 quote, let's see ... consistency and then there was one ... I think it basically was to paraphrase 42 because that's how we've done it. And so oftentimes that is how things are retained and so I'd 43 like to bring up the question, why wouldn't we push on that for, to match the length of the 44 building's life? 45 46 Ms. Silver: Why don't I take a stab at that and then Tim may want to add on. The way the 47 moderate income deed restriction works is that there is no requirement in terms of the term under 48 the State law. And so actually under, there's no limitation. And so the City has some flexibility 49 in determining what the appropriate term for the affordability restriction should be. The way our 3 1 Below Market Rate (BMR) program is administered is that typically a deed restriction will be 2 placed on the first owner of the property and that deed restriction is typically 59 years. And then 3 when that person, if that person does not stay there for 59 years, which typically is the case the 4 new owner will come in and then a second deed restriction will be placed. And that deed 5 restriction will be 59 years according to our program guidelines. So in essence you have that 6 protection just in the way the program is administered. And I think for administrative ease at this 7 point unless there's a need to vary from our existing procedures it's easier at a staff level to be 8 able to administer the BMR program in a consistent fashion. 9 10 Commissioner King: Thank you. And so that's for the ownership, the purchase BMR program. 11 Now do we not have any structures that serve the rental? Or am I missing something that that's 12 not for moderate that we don't offer that for moderate income rental? 13 14 Ms. Silver: We don't typically in Palo Alto have a lot of moderate income rental properties. We 15 -~may-have-sQme-and--in-that-Gase-that-'-s--a-g00d-point -that we could have alonger-deeu-restrictioh 16 under State law that would be permissive to require that the property developer continue to offer 1 7 for rental longer than 59 years. Tim do you know if we have many moderate income units' 18 rentals? 19 20 Mr. Wong: I do not believe we have any BMR units for moderate income, BMR rental units for 21 moderate income. Our BMR program for rentals is specifically for low income, very-low and 22 low. So we don't have any moderate income rentals. 23 24 Commissioner King: Thank you. So I guess it begs the question if they don't exist does it bother 25 even, bother talking about it I guess. Do we have a dinosaur rental program at all? I guess not. 26 Ok. Thank you. 27 28 Chair Martinez: Vice-Chair Michael. 29 30 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you. So I appreciate all the work done by staff in putting this 31 together and I think it's the right thing to do and the right way to do it; maybe unlike my feelings 32 on the last itenl. I think that the question about whether and when the staff would find it 33 appropriate to do some financial analysis in relationship to concessions probably doesn't apply 34 here as much as it does maybe in the case of a Planned Community (PC) where there may be 35 some quantifiable impact on the infrastructure or community in some way that would bear upon 36 the approval process. So I think that having that be discretionary here is perfectly appropriate. 37 38 Also I really appreciate the work that you've done to provide a menu of options regarding the 39 concessions because I think that that encourages a open rational economic opportunity for 40 anybody who is considering·doing a project. They can pick and choose, price that out, see if it's 41 feasible and I hope that although we've been told that this is not likely to get heavy use that it 42 would be, that we would start to see some projects which would come under the Density Bonus 43 Ordinance and that would help the City meet its commitments regarding affordable housing and 44 the polices in the Housing Element that we're about to finally adopt and our commitment under 45 the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) which, all of which is very important. So I 46 think this is a step forward in that regard and I think it's very close to being perfect ,and I think 47 it's certainly good enough for our purposes and I support it. 48 49 Chair Martinez: Wait your turn young man. No, go ahead. Commissioner Panelli. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Con1missioner Panelli: Ms. Silver you opened up a Pandora's Box for me here because now I really, I felt pretty good about where I was and now I need to understand something a bit better. Chair Martinez: I hate it when she does that. Commissioner Panelli: You said, if I were to understand correctly, that in the case of the, to Commissioner King's questions in the case of the moderate income housing those have deed restrictions which typically last 59 years and if there's a transfer of property, grantee, grantor/grantee within that 59 year process a new 59 year period begins. Is that accurate? Ms. Silver: Yes, that's correct, and that's only for ownership units, moderate income ownership units. 15 ~-Gommissioner~Panelli: And so what happens in the case of low~and very..:16wiricome rental 16 properties that are held by whether it's a profit or non-profit corporation? Those are the, that's 17 the 30 year restriction. Correct? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Ms. Silver: Actually for the City's affordable housing requirements we generally put a 59 year deed restriction or 55. But the State Density Bonus Law provides that if a developer is willing to put a 30 year deed restriction they are by law entitled to the protections of the Density Bonus Law. Commissioner Panelli: And at the end of that 30 years what happens? Ms. Silver: It reverts to market rate unless there is some other deed restriction that applies to the property. Typically developers use other funding which may have additional affordability covenants that would operate to extend the term. Commissioner Panelli: So this is a nuance I did not explicitly understand when I was reading the material. We are effectively at risk of losing the affordable housing that we entitle every 30 years after it's been entitled as such. And so we're continuously losing; we give density bonuses and concessions and then we effectively should just assume that we're going to lose that inventory and have to replenish it somehow. This seems like a really bad recipe. It seems like a recipe for disaster. Ms. Silver: That is the case for the small number of affordable units that are created through the Density Bonus Program. State law provides that there is, that developers can just provide a simple 30 year deed restriction. Now, you know, that also lines up with the age of housing stock. Housing stock doesn't last forever. It does typically turnover over a certain period, whether it's 30 years or 50 years depends. And but that, yes, that is the shortfall of the Density Bonus Law. Commissioner Panelli: Ok. Thank you. Chair Martinez: It seems to me one of the reasons we would find this attractive is that it would encourage developers to kind of take on more responsibility for lower income housing. I don't hear from Commissioner A1check that this is true. I heard that this would provide more constraint. So is it anticipated, have we done any projections about what the outcome of providing this Density Bonus Law would provide to Palo Alto? Tim? 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mr. Wong: I do not, we have not done any projections since it is an owner, it's not a requirement such as BMR. We can maybe project how many units and we can take 15 percent of those, but for Density Bonus it really is an owner by owner type decision. So there's no way to really project how many potential density, affordable housing units we'd get through Density Bonus. Chair Martinez: So in looking at our Regional Housing Mandate of 2,180 we couldn't say that two percent would come from something like this? We have no idea of; it's a question, but no idea of sort of the positive effects of having this Density Bonus Law? 11 Aaron Aknin. Assistant Director: I don't think we could quantify an exact number of units. The 12 thing I would say, I mean I understand what Commissioner Alcheck is saying, but to the point 13 that I would disagree is that it does create some certainty both for the City in terms of developing 14 a menu of concessions and on the developer end to what the City's expectations are, what we 15 --wiU~eonsider-for~these-concessions;---So-lthink it does help··when~th-ey're taking a-Iookarland 16 and what they want to develop. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Chair Martinez: Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the only time this has been used is when low income developers wanted to increase the number of housing units like the Eden project on Alma or the one we heard last time from Palo Alto Housing Corp.? Are there others that (interrupted) Mr. Wong: Commissioner Martinez, Density Bonus, 195 Page Mill provided 17 units of affordable housing for two concessions and also 2650. Same developer used Density Bonus for concessions also. Commissioner King: Sorry. What level was that? Mr. Wong: They were rental, so they were at 60 percent of area median income. So they have the 30 year restrictions on them. Chair Martinez: So over the last year how many units do we count for that? Mr. Wong: It would be 18 between those two developments in the past. Chair Martinez: Well did we get a Density Bonus from the Maybell project? Mr. Wong: Not really a Density Bonus. They're asking for concessions, but they're not asking for additional density. Chair Martinez: And what about the Eden housing project on Alma? They got concessions. Did they get increased density? Mr. Wong: I don't think they got additional density. I know they got concessions. I'll have to double check, but I don't believe they asked for density. Chair Martinez: Ok so we can get, we can give concessions but not get additional housing units. Is that how it's going to work? 6 1 Mr. Wong: That is correct. The ordinance states that you don't have to request Density Bonuses 2 to get concessions. You can just request for the concessions. 3 4 Chair Martinez: I see. And the, I like the menu of the specific concessions that are being 5 available; but the 50 foot height limit, how did we hit upon that? It sounds like an obvious 6 question, but I'd like to, I'm trying to trap you so you can respond. 7 8 Mr. Wong: Well in no way can it exceed the 50 foot, but residential I believe the maximum 9 height is 35, so it gives them a little additional height if they are to provide affordable units. 10 11 Chair Martinez: So if somebody's proposing to do this on a mixed use development along EI 12 Camino Real they would be limited to 50 foot? 13 14 Mr. Aknin: Correct. As it's written out they'd be limited to 50 feet. 15 16 Chair Martinez: So as you're aware the Architectural Review Board (ARB) has suggested that 17 there be some flexibility to the 50 foot height limit. So do we take that into account in this or is 18 that something that we consider separately? 19 20 Mr. Aknin: At this point I think that's something that you would consider separately, once 21 there's direction from Council related to the 50 foot height limit and we have a larger community 22 discussion related to that I think that's the time that it would be appropriate to put it within this 23 discussion. 24 25 Chair Martinez: Ok so there's a chance that we might come back and revise this? 26 27 Mr. Aknin: I think so. I mean not immediately, but when we have a community wide discussion 28 I think there could be multiple areas within our code that we'd have to take a look at. 29 30 Chair Martinez: Ok, great thank you. Commissioners anything else? Commissioner Keller? 31 32 Commissioner Keller: So a couple of things. First with respect to the affordability of moderate 33 income units does, if they were moderate income rental units does 18.15.040(b) indicate that 34 those units would be deed restricted for 59 years? Is my reading of that correct? That's on Page 35 8 of the ordinance. 36 37 Ms. Silver: Yes. That's correct. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: So even if people were to build a moderate income rental property it 40 would still have that deed restriction. Thank you. 41 42 The second issue is that the Density Bonus Law is unlikely to be used in Palo Alto for increasing 43 density and very likely to be used for concessions. 195 Page Mill and another as an example of 44 concessions. 101 Lytton, which is the project at Lytton and Alma originally had concessions as 45 the reason it was, because of the housing that was there that was later deleted, but somehow the 46, concessions stayed anyway. That project had concessions as well. And it's likely that there will 47 be other projects that come along for which there are concessions. And right now those 48 concessions are by right and therefore essentially any developer can ask any concession at all 49 and there, the City has no, essentially has no way of restricting that. This would basically 7 1 indicate the menu of restrictions that we're allowing without such a restriction the developer can 2 build things that are not as compatible with the community and the neighboring properties. And 3 so the concession law it basically is, the Density Bonus Law says that the City is supposed to 4 implement it, is supposed to enact and implement the ordinance. Is that correct? 5 6 Ms. Silver: Yes, that's correct. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: Even though this law has been in existence for eight years or more we 9 have not yet done our duty and implemented such an ordinance so we're now going ahead and 10 doing that. Is that understanding correct? 11 12 Ms. Silver: Yes, that is. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: Correct. Is there a minimum number of units that are required so if 15 -somebodybuilds-a~fourstory building with 2--affordableunitson the· toptlcfOr is;-whataoeslhat 16 trigger in terms of that? That's 100 percent affordable, but what do they get for that? 17 18 Mr. Wong: Commissioner Keller, well first Density Bonus Ordinance kicks in when it's five or 19 more units. So if they only build two units they would not be eligible for concessions or Density 20 Bonus. 21 22 Commissioner Keller: And State law does not require the issuance of bonuses if there are fewer 23 than four units, four units or fewer? 24 25 Mr. Wong: Yes. That was taken verbatim from the code. The five unit criteria threshold. 26 27 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So I'm going to make hopefully a Friendly Amendment to 28 add in that special setback as (interrupted) 29 30 Chair Martinez: We don't have a Motion yet. 31 32 Commissioner Keller: We do have a Motion. I thought there was a Motion by Commissioner 33 Alcheck with a Second by Commissioner Tanaka to move staff recommendation. That was not a 34 Motion? 35 36 Chair Martinez: Maybe I wasn't here. 37 38 MOTION 39 40 Commissioner Keller: Ok, there's no Motion. Then I'll make a Motion. So I'll move the staff 41 recommendation with, as stated with the addition that the special setback language be put in as I 42 discussed with the City Attorney. 43 44 SECOND 45 46 Chair Martinez: Ok. We have a Motion. Any second to the Motion? Yes, Commissioner 47 Alcheck. Care to speak to your Motion? 48 8 1 Con1missioner Keller: I'll just briefly say that this implements the requirement in State law that 2 the City have an implementing ordinance for the Density Bonus Law. And I think this gives a 3 reasonable set of concessions and also-has a reasonable way of getting additional data from a 4 developer of low income housing who wishes to have a concession that's not on the menu. 5 Thank you. 6 7 Chair Martinez: Con1missioner Alcheck. 8 9 Con1missioner Alcheck: I hope that this ordinance encourages the development of affordable 10 housing units to a greater extent than we've seen in the last eight years in this City. So we shall 11 see. 12 13 VOTE 14 15--Chair-Martinec:-1\nyone-else?-Ok,-let-'-s-call-for a vote on the Motion:---Th-ose-in-iuvor say· aye 16 (Aye). Got to make sure I got it right this time. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Now 17 we will take our 10 minute break for changing of the guard. 18 19 MOTION PASSED (7-0) 9 Attachment C • CITY OF PALO ALTO City of Palo Alto (lD # 3554) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 3/5/2013 Summary Title: Draft Density Bonus Ordinance (cont.from 1/9/13) Title: Review and Recommendation to City Council to Adopt New Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus) to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Government Code Section 65915 (Continued -.~.----.~---~-.--~-------~-- from January 9, 2013) From: Tim Wong, Senior Planner Lead Department: Planning and Community Environme'nt Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and recommend to City Council to Adopt New Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus) to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Government Code Section 65915. Background The State Density Bonus law (Section 65915 of the Government Code) was first adopted in 1979. The law allows developers who offer affordable units in their developments a density bonus above what the zoning ordinance would typically allow. Originally, developers received a density bonus of 25% if they met the density bonus requirements. In 2004, the State legislature passed SB 1818, which significantly amended Section 65915 of the Government Code. The significant changes to the law, effective on January 1, 2005 I included: • A higher maximum market-rate unit density bonus of 35% for a lower percentage of affordable units provided; • A sliding scale of market-rate density bonus percentages from 20%-35% depending on the percentage of affordable units provided; City of Palo Alto Page 1 • Provision for up to three (3) development concessions or incentives, depending on the percentage of affordable units provided; • Granting the developer a density bonus if they donate land for very low income housing; and • Required jurisdictions to implement Density Bonus law through local codes. Jaouary 9, 2013 PTC Hearing On January 9, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) met to review the draft Density Bonus Ordinance. In the draft ordinance, staff had proposed a menu of concessions that an applicant may' select depending on the proposed affordabJe housing program.---If an ----applieant -decided to request-a-ooncession not listed on the menu, the applicant would be required to submit pro forma documentation to substantiate the need for the request. The PTC conducted their review and continued the hearing, directing staff to return with quantifiable concessions and a review of the necessity of the pro forma requirement.. Based on Commission comments, staff revised the draft Density Bonus Ordinance (Attachment A with red line version as Attachment B). A more detailed discussion about these issues is addressed in the following Summary of Key Issues. A table of all Commission comments has been prepared and included as Attachment C. Summary of Key Issues Pro Forma Submittal Requirement If the applicant requests a concession that is not on the available concessions menu, the draft ordinance requires the applicantto provide pro forma documentation to substantiate the need for the concession. Several commissioners felt that this information was not necessary and suggested the requirement be removed from the draft ordinance. However, other commissioners thought that the request for pro formas was straightforward and wanted the requirement to remain in the ordinance. City staff proposes to retain this requirement in the ordinance. This requirement is the only practical method available fora City to obtain evidence necessary to evaluate the required findings to deny a requested concession. Without this financial information, the City could be forced to grant alternative concessions. Government Section 65915 states that a jurisdiction can deny only if it can show that the concession is not necessary for the affordable rent or sale price. The only way to document such a need is for the request for financial information. As a possible alternative to removing the provision, staff has modified the language to state that the information may be requested instead of a mandatory submittal. In addition, the revised requirement reads that financial information may be requested, instead of a more City of Palo Alto Page 2 specific pro forma. For example, the City could ask the developer for financial information detailing the value gained from a concession (e.g., how much value is created with reduced setbacks) in order to compare that to the cost of the affordable units (i.e., the delta between the value of a market rate unit versus the affordable unit). Quantifiable Concessions The Commission was also concerned about the lack of quantifiable concessions. The original draft did not have any quantifiable requirements and subject to open interpretation. As directed by the PTC directed, staff has revised the ordinance and placed quantifiable thresholds on each concession to provide greater specificity on the extent of the concession. Listed are the revised concessions from the menu of options. The revised portion of the concession has be"en underlined. (i) Upto a 50% average reduction of the side yard setback requirement if the design is consistent with design guidelines, unless adjacent to R-l, R-2, RMD and other low density residential zones; (ii) Up to a 50% average reduction of the front yard setback requirements so long as setback is consistent with design guidelines, unless adjacent to R-l, R-2, RMD and other low density residential zones; (iii) Up to a 50% average reduction of the rear yard setback requirements so long as the setback is consistent with design guidelines, unless adjacent to R-l, R-2, RMD and other low density residential zones; (iv) A percentage increase in the height limit equal to the Density Bonus percentage for which the Development is eligible if necessary to accommodate the Restricted Affordable Units, with a maximum increase of one foot per Affordable Unit, and no event to exceed fifty (50) feet; (v) Up to fifty percent (50%) increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or up to the square footage of the Restricted Affordable Units, whichever is less; (vi) Allowed protrusions into the daylight plane not to exceed 50% of the length of the adjacent lot line; City of Palo Alto Page 3 (vii) Exceeding the maximum site coverage requirement; (viii) Reduction in private open space; (ix) Reduction in public open space. Please note that the last three concessions listed did not contain any quantified requirements. The concessions are rarely requested so to make them more attractive, no quantified requirements have been placed on these concessions. Lack of Oversight There were other comments about the general lack of oversight in reviewing the concession . request. Government Section 65915 grants the concessions by right and its purpose and intent was to have minimal local ability to review the concession. By adopting the menu of concessions, it allows for some city oversight of the concessions while meeting the requirements of Government Code Section 65915. Affordability Term One of the commissioners asked why the affordability term for low/very low income units was different than moderate income units. State Density Bonus law distinguishes between low/very low and. moderate income units and rental/ownership for purposes of affordability terms. Rental Units State Density Bonus expressly requires cities to grant a density bonus if the applicant agrees to . a minimum affordability term of 30 years for low/very low units. (Government Code Section 65915(c)(1).) State Density Bonus law, however, does not contain a specific affordability term for moderate income units. The proposed ordinance contains a low/very low affordability term of 30 years to be con~istent with State law. However, since there is no State law affordability limit for moderate income rental housing, staff is proposing 59 years to be consistent with the City's BMR program. Ownership Units As a practical matter, Palo Alto's ownership units typically are sold to moderate income owners as low/very low people generally find it difficult to qualify for mortgages and pay HOA dues. For owner-occupied units (Le. condo's), State Density Bonus law requires that the initial City of Palo Alto Page 4 occupant of the moderate-income unit be income qualified. If the initial occupant sells, the City shall enforce an equity sharing agreement, unless "it is in conflict with the requirement of another public funding source or law." (Section 6S915(c)(2).) While this particular provision has not yet been interpreted by the courts, staff believes it allows the City to adopt a local law that increases the period of affordability for ownership housing. Again to be consistent with the City's BMR program, staff is proposing moderate income ownership housing affordability of 59 years. Policy I'mplications The proposed density bonus ordinance is consistent with the policies and programs in the current and proposed Housing Element. Program H-38 of the current Housing Element calls for the~adoption'of a revised density bonus program ordinance. Since this was not completed, it remains a program in the Housing Element update. In the draft Housing Element update, a program stipulating the adoption of a density bonus ordinance (Progr~m 3.1.10) has been transferred from the current Housing Element. The draft ordinance meets the requirements of the program. Timeline Subsequent to consideration and recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission, the City Council will consider the ordinance at a scheduled and noticed additional public hearing. Environmental Review The proposed Ordinance revises the requirements for granting a residential density bonus to comply with revisions to State law enacted by the Legislature through the adoption of Senate Bill 1818: Adoption of the draft density bonus will only codify allowances that developers have been able to use in housing developments since 2005. The revisions modify the criteria and incentives offered to qualifying developments but do not authorize c;onstruction not already permitted under the City's existing codes. It is uncertain how many project applicants will seek to utilize the provisions of State law and this Ordinance and where such projects might be located in the City. Further, each individual project will be subject to its own environmental review. Consequently, the attached proposed ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purs~ant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility . the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. Attachments: City of Palo Alto Page 5 • Attachment A: Revised Draft Density Bonus Ordinance (PDF) •. Attachment B: ORD Residential Density Bonus with Menu Feburary 27, 2013 Redline (PDF) •. Attachment C: January 9, 2013 Commissioner's Comments (PDF) • Attachment D: January 9, 2013 P& TC Excerpt Minutes (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 6 ATTACHMENT A Not Yet Approved Ordinance No. ---Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting New Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Government Code Section 65915 The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares as fo Ilows: A. The State Density Bonus Law (Sectio was first adopted in 1979. The law allows develop who o. r a developments a density bonus above what the zom' I Originally, developers received a density bonus of 25 If; requirements. B. In 2004, the State Legislature a amended Section 65915 of the Governm Co effective on January 1, 2005, included: s gnificantly changes to the law, 'opment concessions or incentives, e units provided; er a d nsity bonus if they donate land for very low ns to implement Density Bonus law through C. st, the City has applied the Density Bonus law on an ad hoc basis nd affordable developments. Palo Alto Family Apartments, located at801 ~ a Street and developed by Eden Housing, is a 50 unit affordable rental development. Eden requested concessions to encroach into the required setbacks, exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and to not provide private useable open space. The development at 195 Page Mill Road also requested concessions to allow residential uses in the General Manufacturing (GM) zoning district and to exceed the maximum FAR in return for providing 17 affordable housing units (20% of the total units). D. The 2007-2014 Draft Housing Element Update includes a draft program (Program 3.L10) requiring that a density bonus ordinance be adopted that is consistent 1 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved with Government Code 65915. Staff anticipates that density bonus will be an important tool to help the City accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. . SECTION 2. Chapter 18.1S (Residential Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: Sections: 18.15.010 . 18.15.020 18.15.030 18.15.040 18.15.050 18.15.060 18.15.070 18.15.080 18.15.090 18.15.100 Purpose Definitions Chapter 18.15 Application Requiremen~ Review Procedures" Regulatory Agree i . Comply with the sta' density bonus law under California Government Code section 65919. '" (b)' procetJures for implementing state density bonus requirements as set forth in California Gover 'ent Code Section 65915, as amended. (c) Facilitate the development of affordable housing consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. 18.15.020 Definitions Whenever the following terms are used in this Chapter, they shall have the meaning established by this section: 2 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (a) "Affordable Rent" means monthly rent, including a reasonable allowance for utilities and all fees for housing services, for rental Restricted Affordable Units reserved for Very Low or Lower Income Households, that does not exceed the following: (i) Very Low Income: 50 percent of the area median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for presumed household size, multiplied by 30 percent and divided by 12. (ii) Lower Income: 60 percent of the area median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for presumed household size, multiplied by 30 percent and divided by 12. (b) "Affordable Sales Price" means the maximu ,~._, ... -... Lower and Moderate Income Households can qualify for t jl»"~"'which Very Low, tricted Affordable Units as set forth in the City of Palo Alto's Below Market R Hou·· PrUKFcnn shall be considered affordable only if it is based on a reaso ab ,housing payments (including interest, principal, mortgage insfllJalIte., assessments, fire and casualty insurance, homeowners ass tiatim'~MI~c;; and repairs, and a reasonable allowance for utilities), all as determln_o::I' ... -.. equal to or less than: . (i) Very Low Income: 50 percentof n me for Santa Clara County, adJusted for presumed household size, m , ~p'li e ~ CI divided by 12. Oi) adjusted for presumed household s (iii) (d) "Appr Development as specifi ~ c,~ area median income for Santa Clara ultiplied by 30 percent and divided by 12. 'persQn, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, t ion of entities who seeks Development permits or ority" means the person or body that is authorized to approve a in the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. (e) "Below Market Rate Housing Program" means Chapter 18.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Administrative Guidelines for the Below Market Rate.Program. (f) "Child Care Facility" means a chUd day care facility other thana family day care home, including, but not limited to, infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and school age child care centers~ (g) "Concession or Incentive" as used interchangeably means such regulatory concessions as specified in Government Code Section 65915(k) to include: 3 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (i) A reduction of-site Development Standards or architectural design requirements which exceed the minimum applicable building standards approved by the State Building Standards Commission pursuant to Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback, coverage, and/orparking requirements which result in identifiable, financially sufficient and actua'i cost reductions; (ii) Allowing mixed use development in conjunction with the proposed residential development, if nonresidential land uses will reduce the cost 0 the r ,sidential project and the nonresidential land uses are compatible with the residentiaJ oject a e isting or planned development in the 'area where the Development will be lacated; an (iii) (h) "Density Bonus" means a density increase over the . axi um ~esidential Density granted pursuant to Government Code Sectio~ 65915 and this rdinance. (i) "Density BonusUnits" means th s~ dw provisions of this Chapter which exceed tbe Q,th , ~ development site. ,<-$'( 'DevelopmentSt~n jrC:J1I means a site or construction condition such as a height'limita an, setback, or a fI -area ratio, that applies to a Development pursuant to any ordinance, generaJ,p an element"s 'ecific plan, charter, or other City condition, law, policy, , resolution, or regul.tioh. A "si . nd construction condition" is a development regulation or law that specifies the hysrcal evelopment of a site and buildings on the site in a Development. (I) "DiscretionaryPermitll means any permit issued for the Development which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation from the Approval Authority, including but not limited to conditional use permits, variances, site plans, design review, planned development permits, general and specific plan approvals and amendments, zoning amendments, and tentative and parcel maps. (m) IILower, Very Low, or Moderate Income" means annual income of a household that does not exceed the maximum income limits for the income category, as adjusted for household size, applicable to Santa Clara County, as published and periodically updated by the 4 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Sections 50079.5, 50105, or 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code. (n) "Maximum Residential Density" means the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in the Development by the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance at the time of application, excluding the provisions of this Chapter. If the ' Development is a planned community zone, the Maximum Residential DensIty shall be determined on the basis of the Comprehensive Plan and the maximum density of the previous zone designation. If the maximum density allowed by the Zoning Ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed by the Land Use Element of the City's Compfehe ive P" n, the Land Use Element density shall prevail. (0) "Non-Restricted Unit" means all dwelling u . i the Restricted Affordable Units. (p) "Qualifying Mobilehome Park" means a mo' :·'Ileho based on age requirements for housing older persons pursuant t o the Civil Code. (q) persons eligible to reside in a Senior Citizen Housing Development or e .ark. (r) schedule .. itions of affordability, and prod~ction nit" means a dwelling unit within a Development which or Affordable Sales Price for sale or rent to Very Low, Ids. (t) , Housing Development" means a Development consistent with the California Fair Empl ent and Housing Act (Government Code Section 12900 et. seq., including 12955.9 in p Co ,cular), which has been "designed to meet the physical and social needs of senior citizens," and which otherwise qualifies as "housing for older persons" as that phrase is used in the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-430) and implementing regulations (24 CFR, part 100, subpart E), and as that phrase is used in California . Civil Code Section 51.2 and 51.3.1 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. 5 130102jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (a) The City shall grant a 20 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 acc~rdance with the requirements of this Section and Government Code Section 65915: (i) At least 10 percent (10%) of the total dwelling units of the Development as Restricted Affordable Units affordable to Lower Income Households. For each one percent (1%) increase in the percentage of restricted Lower Income units, a Development w'U receive an additional orie and one-half percent (1.5%) densitx OR ~ u t{), hirty-five percent (35%) of the Maximum Residential De slty; or (iii) (iv) (b) The C1 Shall ,grallt a five p rc nt (5%) Density Bonus when an applicant for a Developm ent of J'ye (S) or m .re a itional · VI' IirJt'units seeks and agrees to construct, in accordance i h the requirerrien of his Sect on and Government Code Section 65915, at least 10 percent, . %) of the total dwe ling nits in a common interest development as defined in Califor ' ivIl ode Section 1351 f r' oderate Income Households, provided that all dwelling units I'n the Bevel pment are offer d to the public for purchase. 'For each one percent (1%) increase inthe ..tentage of res ficted Moderate Income units, a Development will receive an -additional one pert m ( %) de j ity bonus up to thirty-five percent (35%) of the Maximum Residential Density. (c) No additiotla-I Density Bonus shaH be authorized for a Senior Citizen Development or Qualifying Mobilehome Park beyond the Density Bonus authorized by subsection fa) of this Section. (d) 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). 6 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (e) 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 Un~ts, Lower Income Restricted Affordable Units, or Moderate Income Restricted AffordabJe Units, or the Development's status as a Senior Citizen Housing Development or Qualifying MobUehome Park. Density bonuses from more than one category may n'ot be combined. In no case shall a Development be entitled to a Density Bonus of more than thirty-five percent (35%). (f) 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 declm fracti shall be rounded to the next larger integer. (g) Any Restricted Affordable Unit provided purs Housing Program shall not be included when determining ten Units required to qualify for a Density Bonus or other entitle addition, the payment of a housing impact or in lieu fee sha other entitlement under this Chapter. (h) Certain 'other types of developm Density Bonus pursuant to State law: (i) A Develop land donation pu Section 65915(.< . ."""'1·,,; ...... uai'irsion may' be eligible for a Density Bonus or quirements set forth in Government Code applicable req i requirements for R ' . ovision of this Chapter, all Developments must satisfy all Below Market Rate Housing Program, which may impose 'able Units in addition to those required to receive a Density Table 1 summarizes th~. (iensity bonus provisions described in this Section. Table 1 Density Bonus Summary Table 7 130102 jb 0131030 Restricted Affordable Units or Category Very Low Income Lower Income Moderate Income Senior Citizen Housing Qualifying Mobile Park Not Y~t Approved Minimum Percentage Percentage of of Density Restricted Bonus Affordable Units Granted 5% 20% 10% 20% 10% 1QO% 100% . Note: A density bonus may be selected from only one category up to Residential· Density. 18.15.040 Development Standards for Afforda e Additional Percentage Bonus for of Restricted Each 1% Units Increase in Required for Restricted Maximum · Affordable 35% Density Units Bonus ·2.50% 11% 20% 40% imum (a) Restricted Affordable Units shall be constr:ucted concurrentlv with Non- Restricted Units unless both the City and the ap Jrcant gr.ee.within the , egulatory Agreement to an alternative schedule for development. (b) (c) .. ate mining the .. ' aximum Affordable Rent or Affordable Sales Price of Restricted Afforda_ie U its, theL r~sumed household size as set forth in the City's Below Market Rate Housin 0, ij -s all be used, unless the Development is subject to different assumptions imposed b oftier governmental regulations. (d) Restricted Affordable Units shall be built on-site and be dispersed within the Devel6pment, except as permitted in subsection (e) of this Section. The number of bedrooms of the Restricted Affordable Units shall be equivalent to the bedroom mix of the Non-Restricted Units in the Development; except that the applicant may include a higher proportion of Restricted Affordable Units with more bedrooms. The design, appearance and general quality of the Restricted Affordable Units shall be compatible with the design of the Non-Restricted. Units in the Development. The Development shall comply with aU applicable Development Standards, except those which may be modified as provided by this Chapter. 8 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (e) Circumstances may arise in which the City Council finds that the public interest would be served by allowing some or all of the Restricted Affordable Units associated with one Development to be produced and operated at an alternative development site. Where the applicant and the City form such an agreement, the resulting linked developments shall be considered a single Development for purposes of this Chapter. Under these circumstances, the applicant shall be subject to the same requirements established by this Chapter for the Restricted Affordable Units to be provided on the alternative site. (f) A Regulatory Agreement, as described in Section 18.15.090, shall be made a condition of the Discretionary Permits for all Developments puc 0 thi .chapter. The Regulatory Agreement shall be recorded as a restriction on t. The Regulatory Agreement shall be consistent with the City's Below Mark gram guidelines. 18.15.050 Development Concessions and Ince This Section includes provisions for providing Conce ~ion Government Code Section 65915. (a) By Right Parking Incentives. Upo is eligible for a Density Bonus may provide par .'. with Government Code Section 65915(p), '. . u . (i) Zero to one bedroom (ii) al number of space quired results in a fractional number, it shall be rounded up to ' e n w Ie number. For Il~rposes of this subsection, this parking may be provided through tande Pi 'ng or uncov d parking, but not through on-street parking. (b) 130102 jb 0131030 r -QlCII\tllve and Concessions. A Development is eligible for other 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. (ii) Two Concessions or Incentives for a Development that makes at least twenty percent (20%) of the total dwelling units affordable to lower Income 9 Not Yet Approved 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. (iii) Three Concessions or Incentives for a Development that makes at least thirty percent (30%) of the total dwelling units affordable to Lower Income households; or at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total dwelling units affordable to Very Low Income households, or a least:\hirty rcent (30%) of the total dwelling units affordable to Moder Inci;mt! ~GU eholds in a common interest development. Table 2 summarizes the provisions of Concessions or Incentives Table 2 Very Low Income 10% 15% Lower Income 20% 30% Moderate Income (Common Inter 20% 30% Maximumlncentive(s)/Concepi 2 3 130102 jb 0131030 (ii) lJ to a 50% average reduction of the front yard setback requirements so long as setback is co~sistent with the design guidelines, unless adjacent to R-h R-2, RMD and other ~ow density residential zones;; (iii) Up to a 50% average reduction of the rear yard setback requirements so long as the setback is consistent with the design guidelines, unless adjacent to R-1, R-2, RMD and other low density residential zones; (iv) A percentage increase in the height limit equal to the Density Bonus percentage for which the Development is eligible if necessary to accommodate 10 (d) (e) Not Yet Approved the Restricted Affordable Units, with a maximum increase of one foot per Affordable Unit, and no event to exceed fifty (50) feet; (v) Up to fifty percent (50%) increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or up to the square footage of the Restricted Affordable Units, whichever is less; (vi) Reduction in daylight plane requirements not to exceed 50% of the length of the adjacent lot line; (vii) Exceeding the maximum site coverage req i e (viii) Reduction in private; or (ix) Reduction in public open space; or tion of Development Standards " An a tiea t may apply for aiver or modification of Development Standards that will have the effect ically precl~, ing t he construction of a Development at the densities or cenf.v ~ permitted by this Chapter. The developer must demonstrate that Development St r at are requested to be waived or modified will have the effect of physically precluding t h ' nstruction of a Development meeting the criteria of 5ub$ection (a) of Section 18.15.030 at.1 e densities or with the Concessions or Incentives permitted by this Chapter. 18.15.070 Child Care Facilities (a) When an applicant proposes to construct a Development that is eligible for a Density Bonus under Section 18.15.030 and includes a child care facility that will be located on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to, the Development, the City shall grant either: 11 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (i) An additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet of residential space that is equal to or greater than the square footage of the child care facility; or (ii) An additional Concession or Incentive that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the child care facility. (b) The City shall require, as a condition of approving the Development, that the following occur: (i) (c) B nus, Incentive, Concession, waiver, modification or de as follows: (a) Anapplicatlo for a Density Bonus, Incentive, Concession, waiver, modification or revised parking stan f! shall be submitted with the first application for a Discretionary Permit for a Developmt-t 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: 130102 jb 0131030 (i) A brief description of the proposed Development, including the total number of dwelling units, Restricted Affordable Units, and Density Bonus Units proposed. 12 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (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) If a Concession or Incentive is requested, a brief explanation as to the actual cost reduction achieved through the Concession or Incentive and how the cost reduction allows the applicant to provide th s 'cted ffordable Units. (vi) (vii) Level of affordability of t h method to ensure afford ability; 1 UUJlrcGtfinancia formation, including, but not limited to, the a con Itant to review the financial data, shall be borne ancial information shall include all of the following ctual cost reduction achieved through the Concession; ( Evidence that the cost reduction allows the applicant to provide ~rdable rents or affordable sales prices; and (C) Other information requested by the Planning Director. The Planning Director may require any financial information include information regarding capital costs,· equity investment, debt service, . projected revenues, operating expenses, and such other information as is required to evaluate the financial information; (ix) If a waiver or modification of a Development Standard is requested, the applicant shall provide evidence that the Development Standard for which the 13 Not Yet Approved waiver is requested will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the Deyelopment with the Density Bonus and Concessions requested; (x) 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 findi~gs included in Government Code Section 65915(g) can be made; (xi) If a density bonus or Concession is requested for a child care facility, the application sha,1I show the location and square fo tage of the child care facilities and provide evidence that all of the require e . and eae of the findings included in Government Code Section 659151h) can be ad. (d) In accordance with state law, neithe .. e granting of a Gdncession, Incentive, waiver, modification, or revised parking st ndarnot the granti,{Jg of a Density Bonus, shall be interpreted, in andof itself, to r~quire a ge era plan atriendment, zoning change, variance, or other discretioRary'ta ,pro al. (e) 'cation for a Densi Bo us, Incentive, Concession, waiver, modification or revisei:t par :inc s ndard shall be a , upon by the Appr.oval Authority concurrently with the application for . e fist Discretion ' Permit. The granting of a Density Bonus shall not be deemed approval O'f.t entire jJect or approval of any subsequent discretionary permit. (a) Before ap "roving an application for a Density Bonus, Incentive, Concession, waiver, modificq(on or revised parking standard, the Approval Authority shall make the ~ . following findings, as applicable: 130102 jb 0131030 (i) The Development is eligible for the Density Bonus and any Concessions, waivers, modifications, or revised parking standards requested. Oi) Any requested Concession or Incentive will result in identifiable, financially suffiCient, and actual cost reductions based upon the financial analysis and documentation provided. The City finds that the Concessions and Incentives 14 Not Yet Approved included in Section 18.50.050(c) will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. (iii) If the Density Bonus is based all or in part on donation of land, a finding that all the requirementsincluded in Government Code Section 65915(g) have been met. (iv) If the Density Bonus, Concession or Ince[ltive is based all or in part on the inclusion of a child care facility, a finding that all the requirements included in Government Code Section 65915(h) have been (v) -If the Concession or Incentive includ that all the requirements included in Gover -been met. (vi) (b) If the findings required by Approval Authority may deny an applica only if it makes one of the following r 130102 jb 0131030 • Incent ve, waiver or modification would have a specific, blic health or safety or the physical environment or on roperty listed' e California ,Register of Historic Resources, and there is :ble metho ,0 satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact . nderi . he Developmentunaffordable to Low and Moderate Income .. _ the purpose of this subsection, "specific adverse impact" means a significa ; quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identifi ',. I written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the Development was deemed complete; or ' (iii) The Concession, Incentive, waiver or modification is contrary to state or federal law. 15 Not Yet Approved (c) 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. 18.1S.100 Regulatory Agreement (a) Applicants 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 PlanningandCommu itY,E yiron ent, who shall formulate a recommendation to the Approval Authority for final app vat (b) (c) (d) The Regulatory Agreeme Below Market Rate Program n (ii) A descriptio , !)," he ho sehold income group to be accommodated by tpe Restricted Affor ble Units, and the standards for determining the " ;(orresponding Affor able Rent or Affordable Sales Price; 130102 jb 0131030 (iv) .1~rm of use restrictions for Restricted Affordable Units of at least 59 years for Moderate Income units and at least 30 years for Low and Very Low units; (v) A schedule for completion and occupancy of Restricted Affordable Units; (vi) A description of any Concession, Incentive, waiver, modification, or revised parking standard, if any, being provided by the City; 16 Not Yet Approved (vii) . A description of remedies for breach of the agreement (the City may identify tenants or qualified purchasers as third party beneficiaries under the agreement); and (viii) . Other provisions to ensure implementation and compliance with this Section. SECTION 3. CEQA The proposed Ordinance revises the requirements for granting a residential density bonusto comply with revisions to State law enacted by the Legislature through the adoption of Senate Bill 1818. Ado tio of th draft density bonus codifies allowances that developers have bee ~ 0 IlU~·h developments since 2005. Further, the revisions dify the CR".:i~~'\-!t. offered to qualifying developments but do not aut permitted under the City's existing codes. Also, it is applicants will seek to utilize the provisions of State I ai such projects might be located in the City. Further, ch I : ., ual project will be subject to its own environmental review. Consequently, this anc~iis exempt from the requirements of the California Environ uality Act ( . Ypursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the CarfQrnia · ~e Regulat] s since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibilit ad ~ cI ''''piementation of this Ordinance may have a significant ct ' h f ce shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: 17 130102 jb 0131030 NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sr. Assistant City Attorney 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved 18 Mayor APPROVED: ATTACHMENT B Not Yet Approved Ordinance No. --- Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting New Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Government Code Section 65915 The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares as follows: A. vernment Code) in their allow. requirements. B.· In 2004, the State Legislature~~..pc!lsse~ amended Section 65915 of the Government Co effective on January 1, 2005, included: i · iopment concessions or incentives, . Ie units provided; er a density bonus if they donate land for very low ns to implement Density Bonus law through C. 5t, the City has applied the Density Bonus law on an ad hoc basis to both market r ~ nd affordable developments. Palo Alto Family Apartments, located at 801 ~lima Street and developed by Eden Housing, is a SO unit affordable rental development. Eden requested concessions to encroach into the required setbacks, exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and to not provide private useable open space. The development at 195 Page Mill Road also requested concessions to allow residential uses in the General Manufacturing (GM) zoning district and to exceed the maximum FAR in return for providing 17 affordable housing units (20% of the total units). D. The 2007-2014 Draft Housing Element Update includes a draft program (Program 3.1.10) requiring that a density bonus ordinance be adopted that is consistent 1 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved with Government Code 65915. Staff anticipates that density bonus will be an important tool to help the City accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. SECTION 2. Chapter 18'.15 (R~sidential Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: Sections: 18.15.010 18.15.020 18.15.030 18.15.040 18.15.050 18.15.060 18.15.070 18.15.080 18.15.090 18.15.100 section 65919. . Chapter 18.15 Purpose Definitions Density Bonuses Development Standards for Affordab e Units Development Concessions and Ilc~ntives Waiver/Modification of Dev,flOpm Standards , Child Care Facilities Application Requirements Review Procedures -~.'. Regulatory Agree ent . 'censity bonus law under California Government Code (b) proc dures for implementing state density bonus requirements as set forth in California Gover ent Code Section 65915, as amended. (c) Facilitate the deveiopment of affordable housing consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. 18.15.020 Definitions Whenever the following terms are used in this Chapter, they shall have the m'eaning established by this section: 2 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (a) "Affordable Rentll means monthly rent, including a reasonable allowance for utilities and all fees for housing services, for rental Restricted Affordable Units reserved for Very Low or Lower In~ome Households, that does not exceed the following: (i) Very Low Income: 50 percent of the area median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for presumed household size, multiplied by 30 percent and divided by 12. (ii) Lower Income: 60 percent of the area median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for presumed household size, multiplied by 30 percent and divided by 12. (b) "Affordable Sales Pricell means the maximu Lower and Moderate Income Households ca,n qualify for t Units as set forth in the City of Palo Alto's Below Market R shall be considered affordable only if it is based on a reason.a1" m~'nn housing payments (including interest,principal, mortgage in . property ta)(,. assessments/fire and casualty insurance, homeowners ass "· iati ., ;'fe ,property maintenance and repairs, and a reasonable allowance for utilities), all as determined th :City, that are equal to or less than: " (i) Very Low Income: 50 percent of : adjusted for presumed household size, mu ~R Ii (iii) in me for Santa Clara County, . ."d divided by 12 .. . area median income for Santa Clara ultipliedby 30 percent and divided by 12. (d) "Appr rityll means the person or body that is authorized to approve a Development as specifie ·in the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. (e) IIBelow Market Rate Housing Program" means Chapter 18.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Administrative Guidelines for the Below Market Rate Program. (f) IIChiid Care Facility" means a child day care facility other than a family day care home, including, but not limited to, infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and school age child care centers. (g) "Concession or Incentivell as used interchangeably means such regulatory concessions as specified in Government Code Section 65915(k) to include: 3 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (i) A reduction of site Development Standards or architectural design requirements which exceed the minimum applicable building standards approved by the State Building Standards Commission pursuant to Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the He!llth and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback, coverageJ and/or parking requirements which result in identifiable,financially sufficientand actual cost reductions; (ii) Allowing mixed use development in conjunction with the proposed residential development,if nonresidential land uses will reduce the cost of flsidentipl project and the nonresidential land uses are compatible with the residential r.' ject a d isting or planned development in the area where the Development will be I cated; an (iii) Other regulatory Concessions proposed by tea in identifiable financially sufficient, and actual cost reductio (h) "Density Bonus" means adensity increase over t he alCi,,:,u R'esidential. Density granted pursuant to Government Code Secti 65915 and this r.RJnance. (i) provisions of this Chapter which exceed tb development site. (j) "Development" mea s.all evelopments pursuant to a proposal to construct or place five (5) or mor.~~c;Utionahiwelling i on a lot or contiguous lots including, without limitation, a pia d unit aev tOp'ment, site <f~bdivision, or conversion ota non- residential builGing to dwelling"units. "Development Stan " ·means a site or construction condition such as a heighf Iimitat10 , . setback, or a fI Of-area ratio, that applies to a Development pursuant to any ordinance, gen ' . I.Pfan element, ecific plan, charter, or other City condition, law, policy, resolution, or regutftioo .. , A "sit .. nd construction condition" is a development regulation or law that specifies the hyska11 development' of a site and buildings on the site in a . Development. (I) "Discretionary Permit" means any permit issued for the Development which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation from the Approval Authority, including but not limited to conditional use permits, variances, site plans, design review, planned development permits, general and specific plan approvals and amendments, zoning amendments, and tentative and parcel maps. (m) "Lower, Very Low, or Moderate Income" means annual income of a household that does not exceed the maximum income limits for the income category, as adjusted for household size, applicable to Santa Clara County, as published and periodically updated by the 4 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Sections 50079.5, 50105, or 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code. (n) "Maximum Residential Density" means the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in the Development by the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance at the time of application, excluding the provisions of this Chapter. If the Development is a planned community zone, the Maximum Residential Density shall be determined on the basis of the Comprehensive Plan and the maximum density of the previous zone designation. If the maximum density allowed by the Zoning Ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed by the Land Use Element of the City's Comp e' ive P .~n, the Land Use Element density shall prevail. (0) "Non-Restricted Unit" means all dwelling u .. cluding the Restricted Affordable Units. (p) "Qualifying Mobilehome Park" means a mo . based on age requirements for housing older persons p,ursuant to 51 the Civil Code. (q) a Senior Citizen Housing Development or (r) schedule. (t) ousing Development" means a Development consistent with the California Fair Emplo ent and Housing Act (Government Code Section 12900 et. seq., . including 12955.9 in pC\:< Icular), whkh ~as been "designed to meet the physical and social heeds of senior citizens," and which otherwise qualifies as "housing for older persons" as that . phrase is used in the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-430) and implementjng regulations (24 CFR, part 100, subpart E), and as that phrase is used in California Civil Code Section 51.2 and 51.3.1 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. 5 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (a) The City shall grant a 20 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 percent (10%) of the total dwelling units of the Development as Restricted Affordable Units affordable to Lower Income Households. For each one percent(l%) increase in the percentage of restricted Lower Income unitsl a Development w'lI rec ive an additional one and one-half percent (1.5%) densi onus u tHirty-five percent (35%) of the Maximum Residential De sity; or (iii) (iv) (b) The Ciw'shalisrant. a five , ere nt (5%) Density Bonus when an applicant for a Development of lye or m re additional welJi'lt \>units seeks and agrees to constructl in accordance i Ii the requirements 6f his Sect~o and Government Code Section 659151 at least 10 percent't ,9%) of the total dwe Uhg 'units iri 'a common int.erest development as defined in Califor ,a CiVil de Section 1351 f f Moderate Income Householdsl provided that all dwelling I· J?ment are offer " "t o the public for purchase. For each one percent (1%) increase in the . re~rJ.tage of restt.... ed Moderate Income unitsl a Development will receive an additional one pe c,n't 'lt%) denSity bonus up to thirty-five percent (35%) of the Maximum Residential Density. (c) No additiollsl Density Bonus shall be authorized for a Senior Citizen Development or Qualifying Mobilehome Park beyond the Density Bonus authorized by subsection (a) of this Section. (d) When calCulating the number of permitted Density Bonus Unitsl 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; howeverl 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). 6 13.0102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (e) Each Development is entitled to only one Density Bonus, which shall be selected by the applicant based on the p.ercentage 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. Density bonuses from more than one category may not be combined. In no case shall a Development be entitled to a Density Bonus of more than thirty-five percent (35%). (f) The Density Bonus Units shall not be included when determ.ining the number of Restricted Affordable Units required to qualify for a Density Bonus. When calculating the required number of Restricted Affordable Units, any resulting declm racfe shall be rounded to the next larger integer. (g) Any Restricted Affordable Unit provided purs an Housing Program shall not be included when determining t Units required to qualify for a Density Bonus or other entitle. addition, the payment of a housing impact or in lieu fee shatf no ' other entitlement under this Chapter. (h) Certain other types of developme Density Bonus pursuant to State law: (i). A Develop la nd donation pu Section 65915(~). "~"."'£I ... r.'<O.~fsion may be eligible for a Density Bonus or quirements set forth in Government Code rovision of this Chapter, all Developments must satisfy all Below Market Rate Housing Program, which may impose requirements for . ic ed A . ?J able Units in addition to those required to receive a Density Bonus or Concession . Table 1 summarizes the.'i· ensity bonus provisions described in this Section. Table 1 Density Bonus Summary Table 7 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved Additional Percentage Bonus for of Restricted Each 1% Units Minimum Percentage Increase in Required for Percentage of of Density Restricted Maximum . Restricted Affordable Restricted Bonus Affordable 35% Density Units or Category Affordable Units Granted Units Bonus Very Low Income 5% 20% 2.50% 11% Lower Income 10% 20% 1.50% 20% Moderate Income 10% 5% ,~ 1 1%L 40% r' Senior Citizen Housing 100% 20% i--. ____ --t: ------ Qualifying Mobile Park 100% 20;' lr~ . \. ------ "Iote: A density bonus may be selected from only one category uJi. a miUUrnum of 3~YOf the M~imum Residential Density. 18.15.040 (a) Restricted Affordable Units shall be COfls'tructed concurrentJy with Non"': Restricted Units unless both the City and the apprcant ag " e ~ithin the Regulatory Agreement to an alternative schedule for development. (b) Moderate Income Restrict affordable to the designated income p for a minrmUm,lf!riod of 59 years (or a longer period of time if required by the cOAsfroction or mortgag~ financing assistance program, mortgage insurance PfOltSJrl, or rental subs ' y program). Very Low and Lower Restricted Affordable Units shat remai~ e 1 ted anCt ffordable to the designated income group for a period of 30 ars for both rent and,for-sale nits (or a longer period of time if required by a constructi r mortgage financin a istance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsid r-am). (c) n,~ e mining the . ximum Affordable Rent or Affordable Sales Price of Restricted Afford Ie Uhits, th presumed household size as set forth in the City's Below Market Rate Housing , rOI a . hall be used, unless the Development is subjecttodifferent assumptions imposed b ' er governmental regulations. (d) Restricted Affordable Units shall be built on-site and be dispersed within the Development, except as permitted in subsection (e) of this Section. The number of bedrooms of the Restricted Affordable Units shall be equivalent to the bedroom mix of the Non-Restricted Units in the Development; except that the applicant may include a higher proportion of Restricted Affordable Units with more bedrooms. The design, appearance and general quality of the Restricted Affordable Units shall be compatible with the design of the Non-Restricted Units in the Development. The Development shall comply with all applicable Development Standards, except those which may be modified as provided by this Chapter. 8 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet App roved (e) Circumstances may arise in which the City Council finds that the public interest would be served by allowing some or all of the Restricted Affordable Units associated with one Development to be produced and operated at an alternative development site. Where the , applicant and the City form such an agreement, the resulting linked developments shall be considered a single Development for purposes of this Chapter. Under these circumstances, the applicant shall be subject to the same requirements established by this Chapter for the Restricted Affordable Units to be provided on the alternative site. (f) A Regulatory Agreement, as described in Section 18.15.090, shall be made a condition of the Discretionary Permits for all Developments pursu n -to thi hapter. The Regulatory Agreement shall be recorded as a restriction on ' • ' el t.The Regulatory ' Agreement shall be consistent with the City's Below Mark ogram guidelines. 18.15.050 Development Concessions and Ince This Section includes provisions for providing Conces ions", ']i Government Code Section 65915. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DO~ e~ue~bytheapplican~a .,~.ing as provided in this 5(p), inclusive of handicapped (i) nit: two and one-half parking spaces. (b) Other In,ntives and Concessions. A Development is eligible for other Concessions or rncentivesas follows: 130102 jb 0131030 (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. 9 NotYet Approved (ii) Two Concessions or Incentives for a Development that makes at least twenty percent (20%) 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. (iii) Three Concessions or Incentives for a Development that makes at least thirty percent (30%) of the total dwelling units ajfDa:da e to werlncome households; or at least fifteen percent (15%) th "' ot I Ci elling units affordable to Very Low Income households, or at least 'rw p'ercent (30%) of the total dwelling units affordable to Modera Incom nOl1se" olds in a common interest development. Table 2 summarizes the provisions of Concessions or Incen iVes d .lIfibed in subsection (a). Very Low Income 10% 15% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30% 1 2 3 . ssions or Conces*llS.are availabl r land donation, or for Senior Citizen Housing Dev I6pments and Qualifying , , home ~,iks that do not contain Restricted Affordable Units. 130102 jb 0131030 (i) . Up to a 50% average reduction of the side yard setback requirem I)t if the design is consistent with the design guidelines, wAefe Jl3l3licabJc, fo r the unless adjacent to R-l, R-2, RMD and other low density residential zoneS;aFea; (ii) Up to a 50% average reduction of theRed~ced front yard setback requirements so long as setback is consistent with the design guidelines, whefe. a~l3licable, for the unless adjacent to R-l, R-2, RMD and other low density residential zoneS;aFea; (iii) Up to a 50% average reduction of theRed~ced rear yard setback requirements so long as the setback is consistent with the design guidelines, 10 I I (Ql Not Yet Approved where 3FlFllicable, for tAe area unless adjacent to R-1, R-2, RMD and other low density residential zones;t (iv)' A percentage increase in the height limit equal to the Density Bonus percentage for which the Development is eligible if necessary to accommodate the Restricted Affordable Units, with a maximum increase of one foot per Affordable Unit, and no event to exceed fifty (50) feet; (v) Upto fifty percent (50%) increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or up to the square footage of the Restricted Affordable nits, hich (vi) Reduction in daylight plane require length of the adjacent lot line; (vii) (viii) Reduction in private~ or Section. rft.ft.~1D to construct one hundred percent (100%) of the R~stn£~a Affordable Units that are affordable to ~' holds, t ouncil may grant additional Concessions or , , in (i) 0 (lx) above if the Council finds that such to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in ety Code and are in the interest of the public health, (~) Nothing in' hapter shall be construed to require the provision of direct financial Concessionsfo~ t e Development, including the provision of pub,licly owned land by the City or the waiver Q.' ees 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 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) 11 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved of Section 18.15.030 at the densities or with the Concessions or Incentives permitted by this Chapter. 18.15.070 Child Care Facilities . (a) When an applicant proposes to construct a Development that is eligible for a Density Bonus under Section 18.15.030 and includes a child care facility that will be located on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to, the Development, the City shall grant either: (i) An additional density bonus that is an amoynt· sq~~.e feet of residential space that is equal to or greater th ' . he squa e-footage of the child care facility; or (ii) (b) The City shall require, as a condition of approving th following occur: (i) Of the chll ret:' who attevd the child care facility, the children of Very Low, Lower and M er; te Income households shall equal a percentage that is qual to or greater t 'a the percentage of Restricted Affordable Units in the Development that are equired for Very Low, Lower and Moderate Income U eholds pursua~to Section 18.15.030. (c) .tahdifl~ subsections (a) and (b) above, the City shall not be required to provide a density bonus if Concession or Incentive for a child care facility if it finds, based upon substantial evidepce, that the community has adequate 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 application for a Density Bonus, Incentive, Concessj~n, 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 12 130102 Jb 0131030 I Not Yet Approved Permits. The application shall beon aform prescribed by the City and shall include the following information: 130102 jb 0131030 0) 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 ijJ in tan d requested (iii) A vicinity map and preliminary site p. building footprints, driveway and parking la (iv) If a Concession or Incentive is request actual cost reduction achieved through the ~-t5nce' io' or Incentive and how the cost reduction allows the applicant to provide the Re ' . (v) Development Standard would p Development with the De d Concessions requested. (vi) JftTlI~n"'WI~strictedAffordable Units and proposed and Incentives that are not included within the menu of s set forth iR sblbseetion (a) of SectioR 18.15.050 or in SQtis~~ion (c) of 5 ion 18.1S:.0S0,.the application sAaU-may include financial infor: tl n if reo ested b the Director iRcibide a pro forma providing evidence that tft )"' sted Concessions and Incentives result in identifiable, financially sufficient, actual cost reductions. The cost of reviewing any rCEtblircei pro fo.Fm.are,iftlired financial information or other finaRcial data, 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 proforFRafinancial information shall include all of the following items: (A) The actual cost reduction achieved through the Concession; (B) Evidence that the cost reduction allows the applicant to provide affordable rents or affordable sales prices; and 13 (d) Not Yet Approved (C). Other information requested by the Planning Director. The Planning Director may require any pro formafinancial information include information regarding capital costs, equity investment, debt service, projected revenues, operating expenses, and such other information as is required to evaluate the pro formafinancial information; (ix) If a waiver or modification of a Development Standard is requested, the applicant. shall provide evidence that the Development Standard for which the waiver is requested will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the Development with the Density Bonus and CQnc~ions requested; (x) (xi) If a density bonus or Concession is requested r a child4care facility, the application shall show the location ~Ad sg ,are footage a th ch ild care facilities and provide evidence that all of t he requir~ents and e~pn of the findings included in Government Code S . ion 6 1 h) can 'e ~ade. 'I \ i: (xii) 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. 14 130102 jb 0131030 I . I Not Yet Approved (a) . Before approving an application for a Density Bonus, Incentive, Concession, waiver, modification or revised parking standard,the Approval Authority shall make the following findings, as applicable: (i) The Development is eligibie·for the Density Bonus and any Concessions, waivers, modifications, or revised parking standards requested. (ii) Any requested Concession or Incentive will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions based upon the financial analysis and documentation provided. The City finds that t ~ ~ces ions and Incentives included in Section 18.50.050(c) will result in i fa ancially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. (iii) If the Density Bonus is based all or in that all the requirements included in Govern been met. (iv) (v) If the Concession...,..,.. ............. ..;;..;...;..;;~ that all the requireme been met. requested, a finding that the Development waiver is equested would have the effect of physically ~. ion ofrthe Development with the Density Bonus and (i) Concession, Incentive, waiver or modification is not requiredto provide for Affordable Rents or Affordable Sales Prices; or (ii) The Concession, Incentive, waiver or modification would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or the physical environment or on real property listed in the California Register of Historic Resources, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the Development unaffordable to Low and Moderate Income households. For the purpose of this subsection, "specific adverse impactU means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, 15 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the Development was deemed complete; or (iii) The Concession, Incentive/waiver or modification is contrary to state or federa I law. (c) If tt:le finaings req~irea bv s~bsection (a) of tt:lis seetioR can be R=laae, tRe ApproJ/al /\~tt:lority R=lay e1en'l a req~est fora 'Naiver snll( if it R=lakes one of tRe follo ...... ing written finelings, sl:Ipporteei by sl:Ibstantial e'/ielence: (a) Applicants aDensity Bonus, Incentive, Concession, waiver, modification or revised parking standar s all enter into a Regulatory Agreement with the City. The terms of the draft agreement shlfl be approved as to form by the City Attorney and reviewed and revised as appropriate by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, who shall formulate a recommendation to the Approval Authority for final approval. (b) Following execution of the agreement by all parties, the completed Density Bonus Regulatory Agreement, or memorandum thereof, shall be recorded and the conditions filed and recorded on the Development. (c) The approval of the Regulatory Agreement shall take place prior to tentative map approval, and recordation shall take place prior to final map approval, or, where a 16 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved map is not being processed, prior to Architectural Review approval. The Regulatory Agreement shall be binding to all future owners and successors in interest. (d) The Regulatory Agreement shall be consistent with the guidelines of the City's Below Market Rate Program and shall include at a minimum the following: (i) The total number of dwelling units approved for the Development, including the number of Restricted Affordable Units; corresponding Affordable Rent or Affordabl (iii) The location, dwelling unit sizes (squ e of the Restricted Affordable Units; (iv) (v) me~JE$\l_(Q reach of the agreement (the City may r: asers as third party ben.eficiaries under the The proposed Ordinance revises the requirements for granting a residential de onus to comply with revisions to State law enacted by the Legislature thro .. the adoption of Senate Bill 1818. Adoption of the draft density ti'¥' bonus codifies allowances that developers have been able to use in housing developments since 2005. Further, the revisions modify the criteria and incentives offered to qualifying developments but do not authorize construction not already permitted under the City's existing codes. Also, it is uncertain how many project applicants will seek to utilize the provisions of State law and this Ordinance and where such projects might be located in the City. Further, each individual project will be subject to its own environmental review. Consequently, this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section ls061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen 17 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held i~valid, such . . . invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARllltlPATI Sr. Assistant City Attorney 130102 jb 0131030 18 Mayor APPROVED: City Manager Director of Planning & Community Environment COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS OF THE DRAFT DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE Commissioner Comment Stiff Response. Alcheck· Stqff explanation whether it is necessary to include Stoff chose to include but have reworded the language to say pro form as or not. "may .. require "financial information instead of specifically requesting a proforma As the Senior Assistant City A ttomey pointed out, it is the only information the City can use to deny a concession request. Keller I think w hat we need to do is change the term to Will change to language to clarify the terms. restricted qffordable units vs. affordable units in those places that you referenced. Keller Require predominantly housing developments to offer Silent in state law but do not think it can be done. Need concessions more research Keller Clarification of Child Care Section Taken verbatim from State law .. Keller Concessions • Include Special setbacks Special setbacks were not included since the language includes all setbacks. In addition, special setbacks apply only to a limited amount of streets in the City. • Each daylight plane is a setback Revised in the ordinance • Separate private and public open space Revised in the ordinance • Delete paiking since it is by right Revised in the ordinance • Exceeding 35ft. adjacent '0 residential Revised in the ordinance • Remove tandem paiking from parking by right Remains in the drqft ordinance. Tandem paiking is specified by right in the State code. Keller Discrepancies between ownership terms The ordinance has been revised to make consistent with State law. Martinez Consider in lieu fees for density bonus units Not permitted in the State code. Martinez More planning or land use review than ARB The menu of concessions allow for greater planning review. oversight M artinezff anaka Quantify the concessions Some concessions have been quantified. Tanaka Automatic concession without oversight is concerning The menu of revisions is the City's ability to provide greater planning oversight Tanaka Don't want the ones below (concessions) which have Many of the more commonly requested concessions have no restrictions whatsoever. been quantified ... Tanaka Just one concession and everything else is Pre or Would violaie putpose and intent of State law ARB review. ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT D 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatim Minut~s 3 January 9, 2013 4 5 EXCERPT 6 7 Draft Density Bonus Ordinance Review: Request by Planning Division staff for PTC rev iew 8 and recommendation to City Cduncil for the adoption of the Density B onus Ordinance with 9 Menu of Concessions 10 11 Chair Martinez: [Note-beginning of what Chair Martinez said cut off on the tape] provide the 12 Commission of the Density, the proposed Density Bonus Ordinance with a recommendation to 13 the Council. We will begin with a staff report. 14 15 Tim Wong. Senior Planner: Good evening, my name is Tim Wong and I'm a Senior Planner with 16 the City and this evening before you is the City's Drqft Density Bonus Ordinance. Density 17 Bonus is a state law that allows developers to build additional, a density above the maximum 18 allowable in exchange for providing affordable units in the development. And in 2004 through 19 SB 1818 the State significantly revised the Density Bonus Law. Many things were revised in the 20 law, but more significlff'!,tly it increased the density bonus percentage for a lower amount of 21 qffordable units or a lower percentage of qffordable units in the development and it allowed for a 22 greater number of concessions to be allowed on one project. In addition it required jurisdictions 23 to adopt the state law into local ordinances. And that's why we are here this evening. 24 25 In October of 2011 the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) held a study session to 26 review some of these revisions, but primarily to focus on allowable concessions and how to 27 evaluate granting these concessions. There were many items discussed, however there were 28 three items that were more commonly discussed if you will regarding concessions and they were 29 concerns about how using concessions can circumvent the City's height limits. In addition 30 because of the City "s 15 percent Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement if a developer met the 31 BMR requirement would they be eligible for a credit? A Density ,Bonus Credit of one 32 concession. And lastly there was discussion about requesting financial documentation from the 33 developers to document the need of the requested concession. 34 35 At this session PTC was provided with two ordinances that had different approaches towards 36 density or towards concessions, San Mateo and the City of Santa Monica. The City of Santa 37 Monica ordinance was a little more structured with quantifiable concessions and a little more 38 detailed in how to grant the concession while the City of San Mateo was a little more flexible 39 and had more flexible language in their ordinance. And at the end of the session PTe directed 40 staff to prepare the drqft ordinance more in the style of the City of Santa Monica and their menu 41 of concessions. 42 43 So what you have before you is a Drqft City Density Bonus Ordinance. And some parts of the 44 ordinance include provision for a menu of concessions. So if you choose from these menus of 45 concessions no additional, review is necessary per the ordinance. And these concessions that 46 have been listed in the menu were concessions drawn from past requests from approved projects: 47 increased Floor A rea Ratio (FAR), encroachment in setbacks, and also requests for additional 48 height. And if the developer chooses not to choose from the menu of concessions additional 49 'review is requiredfrom the approval authority and as part of the underlying discretionary penn it. 1 1 And the ordinance does also include the financial information will need to be submitted as part 2 of this, part of that request. And lastly, stiff anticipates that the Density Bonus Ordinance will 3be a key tool for the City in achieving its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 4 requirements. And Cara will talk about some of the legal issues encountered in drqfting the 5 ordinance. 6 7 Cara Silver. Senior Assistant City Attorney: Thank you Tim. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City 8 Attorney. So the State Density Law is similar to the Housing Element Law in that it is a State 9 requirement that is essentially forced on cities. We don't as a charter city see this very often in 10 the planning arena because we have the ability in most areas to adopt our own laws, but this is 11 one area where the State has required cities·to comply with unifonn requirements. 12 13 The current State Density Bonus Law in state law requires cities to adopt implementing 14 ordinances. So the substance of the law is essentially incorporated into the drift ordinance that 15 you have in front of you and there's little discretion really to vary on the substance, but certainly 16 there is some flexibility on the procedures for implementing the ordinance. One of the highlights 17 for this evening that I wanted to bring up is the statutory findings that need to be made before if 18 the Commission is to deny an incentive or a concession. And so state law requires that certain 19 findings be made, that those findings be made in writing, and that of course substantial ev idence 20 supports those findings. So we have incorporated those findings into the ordinance in section 21 18.15.090 and it's important that some of the other requirements in the ordinance are driven by 22 those findings. And so that's really thi! crucial part of your decision making here is that we want 23 to make sure that any additions or changes to the state law of course incorporate those findings. 24 25 One of the issues that is in, that we've discussed in the past with the Planning Commission is 26 financial information that is required from applicants. A nd so since one of the findings that for 27 denial relates to the financial aspect of the project and the economic viability of the project we 28 have included in the proposed ordinance in section 18.15.080 (A)(8) a requirement that the 29 applicant submit a pro fonna in the event that they are requesting an exception or an incentive 30 that is not listed in our menu of options that Tim referred to. 31 32 Two final legal issues, one relates to the height limit. Again in the menu of concessions that 33 we've incorporated into our existing, into our proposed ordinance we have specified that 34 developments can exceed the height limits in existing residential zones, but we have specified in 35 the concessions that the height limit though can only go up to 50 feet in compliance with of 36 course the Comprehensive Plan. Now this is something that is an open issue. It could be that 37 applicants could request a height variance in excess of 50 feet and it's still an open issue as to 38 whether the City has the ability to grant incentives that nevertheless are inconsistent with 39 existing zoning codes or even Comprehensive Plan limits. So that's just an issue that we're 40 footnoting at this point. 41 42 The final legal issue that we're raising at this point is the relationship of the Density BonusLaw 43 with the BMR program. Of course in the current state of the law is that inclusionary housing 44 requirements are not applicable to rental housing given a recent court decision. So for rental 45 housing projects they typically pay housing fees and they do not provide restricted BMR units in 46 a rental housing project. However for sale condo projects inclusionary housing is still legally 47 applicable and one of the questions that was raised at the last. study session by one of the 48 Commissioners was if we impose our existing inclusionary housing requirement on a for sale 49 project that automatically triggers Density Bonus. And so I think that we did some further 2 1 research on what other cities do and the existing state law and it does appear that the state law . 2 does not really specifically address this issue. So it's a policy issue of whether you want to have 3 the inclusionary housing requirement automatically trigger Density Bonus or do you want to 4 require that the inclusionary housing requirement be met first and then an applicant can apply for 5 additional Density Bonus units or incentives by derestricting an additional increment of housing. 6 So the proposed ordinance is written right now to first require that the inclusionary housing, the 7 BMR existing program be satisfied and then additional incentives would take place on top of that 8 by requiring additional derestricted units. So that highlights I think the legal issues and think 9 there's anyfurther w rap up? 10 11 Curtis Williams, Director: Thank you Cara, I just wanted to also add that and emphasize as Tim 12 did I think the last slide. there, that this is an important component of our Housing Element , 13 implementation program and that the Commission did include a number of mentions in the 14 Housing Element about certain incentives and concessions being allowed in consistency with this 15 ordinance to be developed. So this is a key part of that and will be a key part of being able to 16 show the State that we've complied. 17 18 Tim recounted for you some of the process here. The Commission has seen this over mUltiple 19 meetings, but it is a situation where we're' trying to implement the State's overall objectives but 20 we're trying to tailor something that fits the Palo Alto situation and trying to be a bit more 21 specific about relating the nature of the concession and the extent of the concession to the extent 22 and type of the Below Market Rate housing that's being provided. So I know those of you who 23 .. have sat through some of the discussions on anything from 195 Page Mill Road to the 101 Lytton 24 and some other projects know how open ended that those discussions were because of some of 25 these state laws. So we do think this is important. We want to hear your thoughts and 26 recommendation on whether this is ready to move forward ' to the Council at this point. But 27 again, we think it's a very important policy document for the City to try to set parameters around 28 the appropriate level of extensions or exceptions to allow. Thanks. 29 . 30 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Questionsfrom the Commission? Commissioner Keller, questions. 31 32 Commissioner Keller: Yes, so you stated Madame City Attorney that the BMR inclusionary 33 requirements must be satisfied first for sale projects so for example, a BMR requirement 15 34 percent would not trigger a concession, but a BMR provision of 25 percent would trigger one 35 concession. Is that, am I understanding correct? 36 37 Ms. Silver: That's the way the proposed ordinance in front of you is drqfted. We believe though 38 that it's apolicy call. You can go either way on thatissue. 39 40 Commissioner Keller: Well firstly I do agree with that policy, but I was, I read the ordinance and 41 I couldn't figure out where in the ordinance it says that and I found some things that may not be 42 consistent with that so that's what confuses me. 43 44 Chair Martinez: Further questions? 45 46 Commissioner Keller: No, but maybe you can give her a moment to respond. 47 48 Chair Martinez: Can we move on and then we'll come back? 49 3 1 Commissioner Keller: You want to come back to that? But let me mention one thing just in 2 particular that will, for example, if you look on page 11 of the ordinance it talks about for 3 number four percentage increase in the height limit and then it's based on a maximum increase 4 of one foot per affordable unit. That would actually be one foot for excess affordable unit Over 5 the required for the BMR. So there's little things like that that I don't think are necessarily and I 6 couldn'tfind anywhere, maybe I misread it, "but that's an issue. So that's, also, for five that the 7 extra restricted affordable units we're talking about. So that's the kind of thing that I was 8 confused 'about, but I wasn't sure where it was. So maybe you can tell me. Thank you. 9 10 Ms. Silver: It's on page 7, letter G. '~ny restricted affordable unit provided pursuant to the 11 City's Below Mamet Rate housing program shall not be included when detennining the number 12 of restricted ciffordable units required to qualify for a Density Bonus or other entitlement under 13 this chapter." 14 15 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. That's helpful, but I think that there other places in the 16 ordinance where, when you're actually computing it based on a number that you also have to 17 exclude that number. A m I being clear? 18 19 Ms. Silver: I think what we need to do is change the tenn to restricted affordable units in those 20 places that you referenced. 21 22 Commissioner Keller: Yes. Ok, thank you. 23 24 Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner Tanaka. 25 26 Commissioner Tanaka: So my basic question is for this ordinance, and it's kind of a general 27 question so maybe you can help me understand this, for the SB 1818, how much above or below 28 or I guess what I'm trying to get at is the qualitative feel of how much above the SB 1818 are we 29 doing? If at all or is it below? I'm just trying to just gage whether are we doing the minimum to 30 meet it or are you going above it? Or are we, I guess you can't go below it. So maybe someone 31 could respond to that. I'm just trying to get a, because I didn't actually read the SB 1818 myself, 32 so I don't understand where we are compared to the state mandates. 33 34 Mr. Wong: Commissioner Tanaka we are meeting SB 1818. Nothing above and cerlainly not 35 below. So and I'll be happy to provide you a copy if you really have some free time of SB 1818. 36 37 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, and then the other clarifying question is I think the City Attorney 38 mentioned that it only applies for ownership units, not rental units. Is that right? 39 40 Ms. Silver: No. The Density Bonus Law applies both to rental and for sale. ,They City's 41 inclusionary housing BMR program now no longer applies to rental housing. We cannot require 42 the construction of qffordable deed restricted houses under a now not so recent court case. 43 44 Commissioner Tanaka.' I see. Thank you. 45 46 Chair Martinez: Commissioner A lcheck. 47 48 Commissioner Alcheck: I'd like to ask the Planning Department whether they feel this ordinance 49 which could be described as setting the bar higher than the cu"ent ordinance will result in the 4 1 actual development of fewer Below Market Rate units. As I understand it very few applicants 2 apply for this bonus under the cun-ent ordinance. And I wonder if we will be inadvertently 3 discouraging that sol1 of development fUl1her. 4 5 Mr. Williams: Thank you Commissioner Alcheck. I think the, there's a couple of parts to that. 6 One is very few in fact I'm not aware of anyone who has applied for the Density Bonus pan of 7 this in Palo Alto who has ever aske4for increased number of units, which you're allowed to do 8 under this ordinance and under state law based on number of Below Market Rate units. So the 9 densitY pal1 no one has done that currently. I don't think this makes a lot of difference as far as 10 the potential for doing that because I still think things like parking and other considerations limit . 11 it in a way that probably wouldn't happen. 12 13 What does, what has happened on a handful of occasions now we've had where an applicant has 14 requested the concessions pan. So I think that's what we're focused on is the incentives or 15 concessions part of it. And that has cel1mnly been beneficial in terms of those applicants being 16 able to do their projects. I don't know whether they would have done them without it or with a 17 lesser amount but I think what we're doing here clearly is restricting to a level in terms of those 18 concessions less than what they could do without us hav ing this implementing ordinance or if 19 our implementing ordinance just more or less mimicked SB 1818, which is what San Mateo's 20 kind of did. Is that con-ect? Yeah, so that was basically was just reiterating the same language. 21 So I think we are restricting it. Whether it's enough, whether it's so much that it will drive 22 someone away from doing a project, I don't know, but it's cenainly not encouraging more 23 housing than leaving it alone or adopting the state language. But it's pretty hard to gage how 24 significant that is. 25 26 I do think one thing it does by this what Cara wps just talking about the difference between for 27 sale and rental is this will be more beneficial for rental projects than it will be for sale because 28 you're going to have to really get up there in terms of percentage of BMR to get the benefit out 29 of this for afor sale project. 30 31 Chair Martinez: V ice-Chair, questions? 32 33 Vice-Chair Michael: So I think to the extent that what you've told us is that this proposed 34 ordinance would be consistent with what's required by the state law. It actually seems pretty. 35 straightforward. To the extent that the City hasn't recently received many if any applications for 36 Density Bonus I think Commissioner Alcheck's question about whether we might in pursuit of 37 the goals set 1011h iii the Housing Element o·r the with the housing allocation targets have a 38 policy of encouraging qUalified developers to take advantage of this would be of interest. 39 40 I think I had one question that I was interested in. The submission of the pro formafinancials as 41 set fonh in 18.15.080 (A)(8), which seems to me to be a fairly straightfolWard and helpful 42 process. A nd I just know a similar issue comes up sometimes when you hav-e a Planned 43 Community (PC) application and the question of public benefit and the nature of the public 44 benefit and the sol1 of quantity of public benefit. A nd I should find it useful here that there is a 45 process for some review of pro forma financials to sol1 of quantify cel1ain decisions consistent 46 with the standards set fOl1h in the ordinance. And I find that helpful. So I think that those are 47 my only comments, not really questions. 48 5 1 Chair M aninez: Good lead in. It seems that I wanted to get back to grilling the City Attorney. 2 I'm kidding. It seems tome that there are very few times where the pro fonnas would be offered 3 by the developer and mostly it would be son of self-inflicted. The developer claimed that the 4 only way they could afford to do this project is if they get these concessions and then rightly so 5 somebody should ask well show us the paperwork. But in other situations where developer says 6 in order to make good use of this site I need to decrease the setbacks or I need a better FAR. It's 7 not so much a question of the pro fonnas or the profitability of it, it's more about the quality of 8 the land use. And so wouldn't we be limited, somewhat constrained in asking for pro fonnas 9 Ms. City A ttomey? Or Madame City A ttorney as Commissioner Keller referred to you. 10 11 Ms. Silver: Thank you Chair Maninez. The way the ordinance is currently drafted the pro 12 fonnas are only requested in a situation where additional incentives that are not on the menu of 13 options are requested. So if somebody wants just a standard concession of waiving a setback 14 that falls in the menu and so a pro fonna would not be requested. But in a limited situation 15 where an additional incentive is being requested one of the findings that the approving authority 16 needs to make is whether that panicular concession is financially needed to make the project 17 viable. And so you know it seems appropriate in that situation then to request a pro forma 18 because that's really the only substantial evidence that you would have to evaluate that issue. 19 20 Chair Martinez: Ok, but what if the applicant said "I will give the City a million dollars if I can 21 increase my density, a million dollars to build affordable housing elsewhere." That's not on the . 22 menu I don't think. So would the pro fonnasbe required there? 23 24 Ms. Silver: Yeah, I think that that's a development agreement essentially. It's not really an 25 incentive or concession that is anticipated under Density Bonus Law. 26 27 Chair Maninez: Ok. On page four of the staff repon near the top it talks about, let's see, the 28 required units are to be built on site and then the third bullet says, "Includes the option for off- 29 site development." To me that sounds kind of contradictory. So could you clarify what that 30 means? 31 32 Mr. Wong: Chair Maninez actually it already has been done where there were two projects, 2650 33 Birch was required through Density Bonus to provide one affordable unit, but what happened 34 was 195 Page Mill, which also received two concessions in providing 17 qffordable units the unit 35 at 2650 Birch was effectively transferred if you will to 195 Page Mill. There are distance 36 requirements. I think it cannot be more than a half a mile from the project site. Does that ring a 37 bell? But so the Density Bonus was fulfilled that way, but it was transferred to another 38 development which was nearby, kind of the off-site fulfillment of that for 2650. 39 40 Chair M aninez: Ok. My next question on the concessions we haven't talked much about it and I 41 hope we can give some input tonight on that because I think this is a big deal. Why aren't we 42 quantifying it? Why aren't we saying yes, building height can go up one story? Why is it left 43 open ended? 44 45 Mr. Wong: It was left open ended to provide a little additional flexibility in providing those 46 concessions by not providing those quantified objectives if you will it will help show HeD that 47 we are serious about using Density Bonus as a tool to achieve our RHNA numbers and also to 48 provide that additionalflexibility for the developer. 49 6 1 Chair Martinez: But we realize building height is a big deal in this town. So shouldn't we be a 2 little bit more careful on how we offer it? 3 4 Mr. Wong: Well I do believe for that one particular concession for height we have capped it at 5 50 feet. And also there's a proportionality in the number of qffordable units offered so therefore 6 if in the height concession you can't just provide one qffordable unit in five and get unlimited 7 height. So it was an attempt to limit for height limit or quantify the restriction for height. 8 9 Mr. Williams: I mean we have quantified, is that what you're talking about? The height 10 limitation relative to, it's not floors, but it's foot per qffordable unit not to exceed 50 feet. So 11 there is, I mean there is afonnula 12 13 Chair Martinez: But isn't that o""r limit anyway, 50 feet? Or is there something different? 14 15 Mr. Williams: Pardon? 16 17 Chair Martinez: Isn't that our height limit anyway? 18 19 Mr. Williams: All our residential zones are less are 40 feet, 35 feet, etcetera. 20 21 Chair Martinez: Oh, ok. I get that. Since I have your attention (interrupted) 22 23 Mr. Williams: And then we have something I think a little different for mixed use somewhere. 24 Or no, ok we just left it at 50. What I think ourthought was that if it was going to go over 50 25 feet though that need to then come to the Commission and go through that discretionary process. 26 27 Chair Martinez: Ok. Since I have your attention Mr. Williams isn't, can you explain the what the 28 expectations for RHNA goals would be through implementation of this? Is it m'ore perception or 29 is there a real number that we can identify in this? 30 31 Mr. Williams: It's more perception. I mean I don't think we can identify that this is going to 32 mean that 100 more units are going to be able to be accommod¢ed in afuture area I mean what 33 the State's looking for in tenns of Housing Element compliance is that we are taking actions that 34 do provide some flexibility in this regard and do provide some incentives and concessions but 35 they don't ask us to try to quantify how many more units that would specifically result in. And 36 we haven't, we've estimated on our site analysis based on generally what can be done within 37 existing zoning parameters, but we did assume a little bit more for what the CN zone and that 38 we'll have to amend the code to allow that. But this helps with that. It sort of helps support 39 some of the other arguments about when they question us about well these sites look kind of 40 tight and can you really get the kind of yield out of them that I think this is a section that will 41 help us tell them that we do have the flexibility to modify some of these standards to work. 42 43 Chair Martinez: And then the setbacks concession. I remember in the debate about 801 Alma the 44 proposed setbacks on all sides and the response from the City. I don't think I was on the 45 Commission then; I was just here paying attention to what was going on. The City said well . 46 that's more than one concession and I don't know how it ended up, but what's being built are 47 units that everybody has said are too close to the streets as their first impression of this thing 48 going up. Seems to me that setbacks are too precious to be a concession. That it comes to us as 49 good land use practice and it comes to us as having to do with life safety as well. And light and 7 1 air and separation from neighbors and I really question whether that one should be on the table as 2 a concession. Were there other items that you considered that as potential candidates for 3 concessions that we could hear about? 4 5 Mr. Williams: I don't think there, I don't know if there were. Tim can answer that, but I just say 6 on the setbacks I understand what you're saying. I think if it's that critical in that situation that 7 we have authority under our zoning and design review powers to say that there is that kind of 8 especially if there's a life safety type of issue, but it seems to me that from whatl've seen on a 9 number of projects that there are several that it's been almost a no brainer that having a reduced 10 setback was not impacting anyone and could be done. So I would hate to take that away and just 11 sort of blanket say you can't get a concession for that. Maybe there's a way to qualify it in here 12 or something so that there's a point at which it's not allowed. Maybe it's too open ended the 13 way it is right now, but there are many times when setback isn't affecting anyone that's an easy 14 way to go to gain more flexibility on the site or yield on the site or something like that. 15 16 Chair Martinez: Seemingly so but anybody who I've talked to about "801 Alma complains about 17 the front setback. So that one wasn't so easy to go and we gave it up. Granted it's not, the 18 building'S not going tofall over onto somebody on the sidewalk, but (interrupted) . 19 20 Mr. Williams: Yeah and it's not done and it's not any closer than several other buildings right in 21 the next blocks either direction. 22 23 Chair Martinez: Lower, much lower buildings that are closer (interrupted) 24 25 Mr. Williams: Some of them are pretty, ok. 26 27 Chair Martinez: But anyway I really think that one should be really considered a land use 28 decision more for Planning staff then for A rchitectural Review Board (ARB) or us to deal with 29 and once you offer it as a concession I don't think it's going to be that easy to take back. So 1 30 would really give thought to doing that and I don't know the concession of offering in lieu fees 31 for Density Bonus it seems to me, I don't know maybe I'm mixing apples and oranges here, but 32 it just seems that would be important for us to do in terms of building our housing fund. 33 34 So and I guess in the ordinance I kind of read it over quickly this evening we are trying to get at 35 defining more' clearly what these,theextent of what these concessions to go. So is it clear that 36 setback means all setbacks? Or is that negotiable or it's not a concession if they don't get them 37 all? 38 39 Mr. Wong: In regard, Chairman Martinez, each setback is considered one concession the way 40 this ordinance is prepared. So for 801 I understand they got three setbacks as one concession, 41 but this, the ordinance as written one setback is one concession. Although I will say the Council 42 has greater discretion to offer more flexibility in these concessions for developments that are 100 43 percent qffordable. So. 44 45 Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner A lcheck. Comments? 46 47 Commissioner A lcheck: So I want to weigh in on the issue of requiring financial documentation 48 as evidence of the necessity of concessions. This report suggests that the Commission discussed 49 this idea and supports it and I want to highlight for the Council that since that discussion by the 8 1 Commission the makeup of this Commission has significantly changed. Only three of the 2 Commissioners from that Commission are currently Commissioners and I'm not sure there is 3 consensus anymore on whether or not we feel the financial. infonnation is helpful. And I won't 4 speak for anyone else, but I myself do not believe the City should require developers to share 5 their financials for a number of reasons which I'm happy to share. I won't at this time, but I tim 6 happy to share them. And I strongly, strongly encourage the Council to approve this ordinance 7 without section 18.15.080 (A)(8). 8 9 A nd I want to highlight one other thing. I don't believe the Planning Department believes that 10 this financial documentation is necessary. I think or at least it's my impression, you can correct 11 me if I'm wrong that it was included here because a previous very different Commission 12 recommended it and you're working off that recommendation. It's not my impression that the 13 Planning Department feels that this infonnation will help them significantly. So I want to 14 reiterate for the Council's benefit that I am strongly opposed to this and I am that way for a 15 number of reasons and one of them is that it's a slippery slope that I don't believe this is 16 information that will help us. And that's really my comment. 17 18 Chair Martinez: I'd like to open thisforfurtherdiscussion, butfirst Iforgotwe have one member 19 of the public that wishes to speak. So let's open the public hearing. 20 21 Vice-Chair Michael: The speaker is Herb Borock. 22 23 Herb Borock: Thank you. I don't think this proposed ordinance is ready to be voted to the 24 Council. Eight years ago was the first CMR about the amendments from SB 1818 and four years 25 ago this government code section was completely restated and amended. Andforeveryone to be 26 continuing discussing it as SB 1818 I have to say they don't know what they're talking about. 27 And to have one Commissioner say he hasn't read the government code section when the version 28 that was adopted four years ago was attached to the staff report in October for you to read is abit 29 confusing for me. 30 31 Some of the things the staff is offering I don't think are legal such as being able to first require 32 the BMR units and then on top of it ask for concessions, such as asking for financial pro formas. 33 Those kinds of things look good to get approval but then they're taken away by the courts. We 34 already have an ordinance the Pedestrian Transit Overlay District that says that· is the way to 35 impl~ment the Density Bonus in state law in the California Avenue area and there's nothing in 36 here to reconcile those two. 37 38 In October you weren't told about the condominium conversion, which is a separate section of 39 the code and that requires an action, a decision when a request is made within 90 days, but 40 there's nothing here about what that process should be. I believe that should be before the . 41 Commission and the Council. A lot of the proposed ordinance is rewriting things that are in the 42 code in Government Code Section 65915. But what happens when people rewrite things they try 43 and edit them and in some cases made them worse. For example, low income and lower income 44 can be rental units only. For sale units can only be moderate. Yet the definition in here reads as 45 if you can have for sale units that are low and lower income. You cannot do that in Density 46 Bonus law. 47 48 The issue of 2650 Birch and 195 Page Mill, I was at all the meetings and received a copy o/the 49 Director's decision. I don't recall there being a transfer of a unit. Yet this is here sort of saying 9 I 1 you can do that. In fact you can 't because the definition of housing development in 65915 says it 2 has to be on contiguous sites. So you can't put units someplace else~ So that violates the law. 3 4 Similarly the Eden Housing project on A lrna Street, at the time there was nothing in our law that 5 pennitted a higher density that it put in. But if you calculated based on floor area and the size of 6 the units in South of Forest A venue that project exceeded what the law allowed. This ordinance 7 gives that power, but you can only increase the density. You do not have the power to give more 8 incentives and so that is wrong as well. Thank you. 9 10 Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. Any further? Commissioner Keller. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: Yeah I was holding off further comments until we had the member or 13 members of the public speak. But I have a few comments. First I'd like to respond to the 14 comment from Commissioner A lcheck and that is that the way that government section, 15 government code, federal, state Government Section Code 65915 is thq.t the purpose of 16 concessions is to make the housing more affordable. And therefore I would strongly recommend 17 keeping this section eight precisely because if somebody asks for a concession that's not part of 18 what's there then they have to explain why. Now if you want to eliminate section eight then 19 simply eliminate the ability to have concessions that are beyond what is in the menu. But if you 20 allow concessions that are not in the menu then they have to justify them and the purpose. of the 21 ordinance from the state law is to make it affordable and therefore pro fonna provides the ability 22 to do that. So that's my understanding of why that is. 23 24 A nd I know that, couple things. First of all a number of the Commissioners have been inv ited to, . 25 were, attended meetings put on by some organization that I know that Commissioner Tanaka 26 went to a meeting that I went to afew months ago where Commissioners and Council Members 27 and whatever are invited to attend, staff, on a countywide . basis. And we were actually shown 28 how to read pr%nnas of housing and how to interpret them and such. So other cities may in 29 fact use them. So I'm going to put that aside as that. So if you have a catch all allowing other 30 concessions they have to justify them and explain why. 31 32 Ok. Thefirst thing is in tenns of let's suppose you have aproject in which they addfive housing 33 units which are all affordable on a 100,000 square foot office building. How much concession' 34 should they be entitled to get? Sol think that if it's legal, and I ask this of the City A ttorney, is it 35 legal to only allow concessions on a project that is predominantly housing? And if the project is 36 not predominantly housing you don't get a concession. So for example require that the portion 37 of development devoted to housing be at least 50 percent of the FAR of the floor area of the 38 entire project. Is that a requirement that we could have? 39 40 Ms. Silver: Commissioner Keller we'd have to research that a little bit further. The ordinance 41 that the state law really does not give much guidance on mixed use projects and unfortunately 42 there's only like two published decisions on the statute. So we've struggled with how to deal 43 with mixed use projects and we'd have to think about that one a little bit more. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: So because for example what was also being discussed for the Lytton 46 Gateway project was a project in which there was a small amount of housing, one floor of 47 housing and a tremendous amount of concessions were being achievedfor that. And so that was 48 a situation in which, yes? 49 10 1 Mr. Williams: So if I couldjust add what we've tried to, first of all I mean I think SB 1818 2 3 Commissioner Keller: Government Section Code 65915. 4 5 M r. Williams: Yes. Does I think I read the intent of that as intending to apply to mixed use 6 projects. And so I, and also the fact .that our Housing Element is highly reliant on mixed use 7 development in order to demonstrate that we're compliant. So I think it would be kind of 8 counterproductive to spmehow not apply it to mixed use projects. But the. other thing is that 9 we've put the provision in here as far as the allowance for FAR is specifically limited on this 10 with that thought in mind on page 11 at the item V there. Up to 50 percent increase in the Floor 11 Area Ratio or up to the square footage of the restricted affordable units, whichever is less. So 12 what we're saying is you don't just get to do all kinds of extra commercial square footage just 13 because you gave us one more restricted affordable unit if that affordable unit is 1,300 square 14 feet then you get 1,300 square feet more of commercial. So we were very cognizant of that and 15 that's why that provision is in there, to try to create some parity in those. 16 17 Commissioner Keller: Ok. 18 19 Chair Martinez: Commissioner, can I ask you what were you trying to achieve with your 20 suggestion? 21 22 Commissioner Keller: Well my t$uggestion is, first of all I'm not suggesting that we eXclude 23 mixed use development. I'm just suggesting that we only allow mixed use developments in 24 which housing is a major component. So therefore if housing is let's say 50 percent, 40 percent, 25 but some large percentage of the overall floor area then you get bonuses, but if housing is an 26 afterthought added onto a major offiCe building then that's not really a situation in which the 27 housing makes the project, more affordable housing makes the project that much more 28 unaffordable to the developer. 29 30 Chair Martinez: Commissioner the Gateway project was a PC though so the public benefits were 31 larger than just the housing being provided. It just it seems to me that you're asking to put 32 additional constraints when we're trying to build housing and we're trying to make our effort to 33 the State seem more as if we're serious behind it. I don't really see the benefit in trying to 34 manipulate the development so it mOkes it less interesting for the applicant, the developer to 35 build his project because he has to provide more housing or is penalized for it. Why don't we 36 just leave it alone? And we have the limits that the Planning Director has stated. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: Ok. May I continue? 39 40 Chair Martinez: Definitely. 41 42 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Ok. In the cover material it basically says that, in the staff 43 report it limits the require, the limit on when a project can, when the restricted affordable units 44 no longer have to be restricted is 59 years. However on page 8 of the Draft Ordinance it says 59 45 years for some units and 30 years for other units. And I'm wondering· why there's a 30 year 46 there as opposed to 59? And secondly I'm wondering why it isn't merely for the life of the 47 project. Why should we have to wony about it some years down the road? Why can't it just be 48 as long as the project is there the units have to be affordable? Any thoughts? 49 11 1 Mr. Wong: Commissioner Keller I know the 30 year is straight from the Government Code 2 Sect~on 65915 in that ownership units I believe are a minimum of 30 years. So (interrupted) 3 . 4 Commissioner Keller: So we can't have a more severe requirement than the government code? 5 6 Mr. Wong: And I believe, no, we've made them for 59 years to be consistent with the City's 7 BMR program. 8 9 Commissioner Keller: Ok, but it does say 30 years in the third line from the bottom of paragraph 10 B of 18.15.040. There's one mention of 59 years and one mention of 30. Yeah I'm just 11 wondering if that has to be 30, but 'maybe you can think about that. 12 13 The next issue is on page nine. There's a whole bunch of parking incentives which are by right. 14 Do those parking incentives apply only to the affordable units and our regular ordinance applies 15 to the regular units? The market rate units? Is that correct, my interpretation of that? 16 17 Ms. Silver: The by right would apply to the entire project. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: So in other words, if somebody has 20 percent affordable then let's say 20 then they suddenly all of the development of the project, the remaining 80 percent is limited in 21 tenns in of how much parking we can require? 22 23 Ms. Silver: Yes, that's the state law. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: I see. Well I won't mention any words I think about that, but anyway. 26 Because they're not printable. But in any event at the bottom of that paragraph it says, ttprovide 27 for tandem parking." I would delete tandem parking. I don't really see a reason for, if this 28 severely restricted to allow tandem parking in addition. 29 30 Chair Martinez: Do you have additional comments you want to (interrupted) 31 32 Commissioner Keller: Yeah, but I can do one; I can hold it and do another round if we have 33 another round. 34 35 Chair Martinez: Well how much more do you have? 36 37 Commissioner Keller: I have gone about a halfway through. 38 39 Chair Martinez: So you have another three minutes? 40 41 Commissioner Keller: I can go another three minutes, but I think it's a little longer than that so 42 it's your choice. 43 44 Chair Martinez: Ok. We'll come back to you then. CommissionerAlcheck had some comments. 45 46 Commissioner A lcheck: I want to make a rebuttal on the financial issue. I don't believe that the 47 ability to analyze a pro fonna is relevant here. I have an MBA as well and I've spent many 48 nights with pro fonnas. I want to say that developments can take years. And the business of 49 development is risky for that very reason. A nd the success of a project and a development in this 12 1 City is as much a factor of fiscal components of that development as it is the time it comes 2 online. If it's a good market, huge success. If it's a bad market, it's a bankruptcy. And if we 3 evaluate concessions based on how much profit a developer may make at the conclusion of a 4 specific project, we are allowing local government to reduce the upside potential and increase the 5 downside potential at the same time. It has, there is no benefit to a developer. 6 7 And I want to note that asking for a concession doesn't guarantee receipt of that concession. 8 Each applicant that asks for a concession that's not on the menu will have to make their case. If 9 they choose to voluntarily mtike that case with a pro fonna, so be it. And if their case isn't 10 strong enough without pro formas they're denied. It's not; you don't ask for a concession and 11 get it. You have to make the case. And I think that we are capable of evaluating these 12 concessions without knowing how much money a developer anticipates making in afuture that 13 nobody can guarantee. And that is, I mean that is the crux of the, my opposition to the analysis 14 of pro formas as a way of evaluating land use decisions. I think we need to evaluate whether we 15 want to allow these concessions because they make sense for us. They achieve a goal that we 16 have like increasing Below Market unit availability or the like. So I'm not going to make more 17 points on this outside of this comment. 18 19 Chair Martinez: Well stated Commissioner and I support your position. However I know from 20 recent events with the Speaker of the House you don't call for a vote when you know you're 21 going to lose. So I think the comments of Commissioner Alcheck will be heard by the·Council 22 and we are going to allow it to sit as it is and with the recommendations that you've "heard from 23 the various Commissioners today. Furthercomments? Commissioner Tanaka. 24 25 Commissioner Tanaka: Well one quick thing for stqffis one of the members of the public made 26 some comments. I was wondering if maybe staff could quickly address those comments that we 27 heard? 28 29 Mr. Wong: I am not ready to address the Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development(PTOD) and 30 the condo conversion. I wasn't ... 31 32 Mr. Williams: The PTOD one I know we have in our Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development 33 zoning Mr. Borock is correct that we had included in there language because we developed that 34 zone very shortly after the state government code Density Bonus law was enacted and we tried to 35 envelop within that provisions that depending on how many BMR units you were providing that 36 you would get certain increases in height up to certain max. somewhat similar to what's being 37 done here, however, then you'd be without this kind of an ordinance it became apparent that we 38 really couldn't do that because that wasn't in and of itself considered an implementing ordinance 39 for that code. It was just this one zoning district we had. So I think we had determined that we 40 really couldn't apply that. 41 42 And so what I think we're going to have to do is if this, if we pass this we'll have to clean up that 43 ordinance and take that out and this will govern or modify it to be consistent with this or 44 something like that. So there is some inconsistency right now, but we'll rectify that. This is a 45 broader based approach that we need to do citywide. So this is the way we should go at this 46 point and we'll deal with the PrOD zoning at a later date. 47 13 1 Chair Martinez: And with other questions regarding state law. For example, for sale units only 2 applying to BMR applying to moderate income units if those are inconsistencies how do we 3 begin to correct that? 4 5 Mr. Williams: So you understand the question? We're referring to ownership units that refer to 6 low and very low income. We don't require that, but that somebody could do that and get 7 concession. 8 9 Mr. Wong: Oh absolutely. Right now the state law addresses ownership for moderate income. 10 That's what the Government Section 65915 states, but yeah. If the developer chooses to do 11 lower qffordability therefore he would be eligible for additional concessions or a higher 12 percentage of Density Bonus if that's what the developerchoses to do. 13 14 Chair Martinez: So there's no inconsistency with the state law you're saying? Yes? 15 16 Mr. Wong: If the developer chooses to do a deeper affordability I don't think that that would be 17 an inconsistency w Uh state law. 18 19 Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you. Commissioner Tanaka, I'm sony I interrupted you. 20 21 Commissioner Tanaka: No problem. So I also saw that there was a concession for mobile home 22 parks. And I was wondering is that really part of the state law to actually have, you have to give 23 a concession for mobile home parks? 24 25 Mr. Wong: I'm sony. Could you repeat the question again? 26 27 Commissioner Tanaka: Oh sony. Ok. I noticed that there was a mobile home park concessions 28 and I was wondering is that really part of the state law to have the mobile home park concession? 29 30 Ms. Silver: Yes, it is. And that's for the development of a new mobile home park and the state 31 law specifically provides incentives for the development of mobile home park and also for the 32 development of childcare facilities. And that's part of state Density Bonus law and so it's 33 incorporated into our local (interrupted) 34 35 Commissioner Tanaka: So there's no choice basically. Ok. Andl guess the other thing is what 36 has to be on the menu of concessions? I mean do we just, can we just put one thing or do we 37 have to have all the things that we have listed? What's the requirement? 38 39 Mr. Wong.~ Commissioner Tanaka there is no requirement about what can or cannot be on the 40 menu of concessions. These concessions that were chosen by staff have just, were concessions 41 that were approved in the past or have been requested in the past. But it's up to the Planning and 42 Transportation Commission to evaluate which are worthy if you will to stay on the menu or not. 43 44 Commissioner Tanaka: Because I'm actually with the Chair on this a bit in tenns of Qf4antifying 45 the concessions. A nd I think things like setback and other restrictions are kind of important and I 46 would almost want to see if this is state mandated that we have to have all of these kind of things 47' like mobile home park concessions. I would almost, or requirements. I would almostfeel, sorry, 48 Density Bonus. I would almost feel like we should have just one item as a concession, an easy 14 1 one, and then everything else we should go through the FTC or ARB or the respective 2 (interrupted) . 3 4 Mr. Williams: I just have to indicate that I think we have some discretion to implement this law, 5 but this ·is a state law that is intended to provide incentives to create housing. And 1 think that if 6 we come and we create one incentive and particularly if this one incentive that isn't even 7 meaningful or something like that. I mean I'll leave itto the City Attorney to judge whether that 8 will kind of jeopardy that puts us in, but it certainly doesn't look good and 1 can tell you that 9 HCD when they're reviewing oilr Housing Element is going to thumb their nose and say you're 10 not, we've asked you to provide incentives and concessions for encouraging housing and they 11 are not going to be impressed by that kindof, ifwe're that limited. 12 13 So I think what we've done is we've said there's afairly broad range of concessions here, but/or 14 the most part in the areas where it really we're talking about extensive development, FAR and 15 height, they are pretty limited and if you want to exceed those you're going through the Council 16 and Planning Commission to do so. A nd that otherwise there are limits on most of these other 17 ones as to how much you can get. So it's much, much more restrictive than what we've been 18 operating under the last six or seven years. But I understand it and using it to be so. restrictive 19 that it doesn't do what state law intended it to do as a Planner I don't think that's an appropriate 20 way to go unless the one concession that you're granting is a really significant concession. If 21 you're going to tell everyone they can have 25 percent more FAR kind of by right that might be 22 different. 23 24 Commissioner Tanaka: Well I guess I was just trying to think about what's right for Palo Alto 25 and if those concessions are right for that development the various bodies would approve · those 26 concessions, but I guess to have them automatic and not have any oversight to me is the 27 concerning part especially if they 'renot a quantifiable concessions. So that's more of a point, 28 that's why I kind of was keying off of what the Chair was saying about that because actually I 29 agree. I think it makes sense. So that's my main concern about that. I don't know if it's 30 possible for maybe for there to be some oversight about these concessions if they are riot as 31 quantifiable. 32 33 Chair Martinez: Can I follow that up? It seems like from what we've seen there's been a sense 34 of entitlement to these concessions. I know that it's subject to ARB and to Planning stqff's 35 recommendations, but it just seems that developers from what I've seen feel that they can go 36 higher, they can go wider, th~y can go more FAR. It's, that's hard to sort of overcome when it's 37 not good land use. And [think Commissioner Tanaka is really echoing my sentiments that you 38 know how do we sort of do this? And I respect what the Planning Director said, that this is 39 really an important perception that we want to give out that we're looking for ways to increase 40 affordable housing and it may come to a few units that with insignificant impact because it is I . 41 hard to build things like that here. But on the one hand I don't want to see us pushing the 42 requirement jor pro formas and more documentation and like that, but on the other hand I want 43 the planning process to be on good land use not on what somebody feels they have a right to do. 44 So I don't know how we strike a balance on that. 45 46 Ms. Silver: Chair Martinez? 47 48 Chair Martinez: Yes, City Attorney. 49 15 1 Ms. Silver: So the concessions, the menu of concessions start on page 10 of course and I'm son 2 of struggli1J:g with this issue of the Commission thinking that they are sort of open ended and not 3 quantifiable. And we did have afair amount of discussion on this and other jurisdictions do have 4 a little more quantification and in fact Santa Monica's requirements were more quantifiable, but 5 we thought that it would be better to have some discretion. So the limitation that we "put for 6 instance on the first three, the setback requirements is that they should comply, that the setback 7 variation should comply with design guidelines. Now it certainly is just as appropriate to modify 8 that with some other type of limitation and maybe even have a quantifiable measure, but it's not 9 cenainly open ended by any means. 10 11 And then going to the next set, the height limit we've talked about that is quantified very 12 expressly and as is 1 think the FAR. So the last three are certainly more open ended; they don't 13 have any qualifiers. So it, maybe you can give us some guidance on how to better limit those, 14 but I think it would be helpful to review what we do have and perhaps suggest areas that you 15 think need improvement because there certainly was some effort put into trying to limit the 16 concessions in a way that did fit Palo Alto. 17 18 Mr. Williams: And we could do that in tenns of saying like a-percentage of no more than 25 19 percent reduction in setback or 50 percent reduction or same thing in daylight plane or open 20 space areas or things like that if that was preferred. 21 22 Commissioner Tanaka: So I (interrupted) 23 24 Chair M aftinez: Commissioner Tanaka, go on. 25 26 Commissioner Tanaka: Sorry. I think that would certainly be better. I guess, I mean like I take 27 number four in the height limit issue. I mean and this is probably not possible, but for instance I 28 know the limit is 50 feet, but could you directly build something next to an R1 or in a Rl that 29 would be 50/eet? If you put a lot of BMR units in Right? I guess I worry about that because I 30 think the Chair is right that we need to make sure that Palo A Ito has the right land use. And I 31 especially don't want the ones below which have no restrictions whatsoever. 1 think those, that 32 doesn't feel right to not have those very quantifiable for some sort of like, doesn't mean you like 33 with reduction of daylight plane requires some you could cast a huge shadow over your 34 neighbor'S property. I don't know. I mean it doesn't seem right. 35 36 And also I was maybe saying that either we have a lot of oversight over this to make sure that 37 something bad doesn't happen, or we really reduce it so it, reduce it to the ones that are truly 38 quantifiable or something like that or maybe a mix of that. And so that we don't end up with 39 something that we have no control over. 40 41 Mr. Williams: So that's, I would just say if that is the sense of the Commission I would suggest 42 that if you want to do that and we, you would send it back to us and we would try to come back 43 to you with more quantifiable infonnation. 44 45 Chair Martinez: Let me just follow up and then I'll get to you Commissioner. I would suggest 46 kind of the opposite, that we adopt it just as it is as a pilot program for a year and just see what 47 comes. If we get no takers then it's not doing what we're trying to achieve and that's to get more 48 BMR units. If it really becomes more problematic then we need to go back to the drawing board. 49 My only concern is that you say you can have up to 50 feet somebody will come in with a 50 16 1 foot project and we're not finessing it. We're sort of at the maximum at the get go. A nd maybe 2 that's an unwarranted assumption given the lands that are available for housing development. So 3 maybe it's a possibility that we just see if it works. There are certainly good ideas there and they 4 all make sense. It's not like we're thinking that this is some crazy thing that Planning wants to 5 do. I think it all is reasonable. It's targeted towards our RHNA goals. You know we're not 6 getting enough ciffordable housing .. All the reasons fordoing this and to comply to state law, 7 which is important. I think it's worthwhile but we don't know the outcome. And perhaps it's as 8 easy as just giving it a try and coming back in a year and saying we have nothing to report. 9 Nobody ls doing it or we'll see another Lytton Gateway project where it's not exactly how we 10 thought it would take shape. I don't know. Is that a possibility for us, or is that not a good 11 planning strategy? 12 13 Mr. Williams: I mean it's always good to review new ordinances and such when they go into 14 effect so I think that's peifectly reasonable to specify that we review it in a year and see where 15 you are. 16 17 Chair Martinez: Vice-Chair Michael. 18 19 Vice-Chair Michael: So as always I'm impressed by the conscientious attention to detail of my 20 colleagues on the Commission pouring over this in great detail. And I've been thinking pretty 21 intently on each and every comment that everybody has made and I'm not persuaded that we 22 have any collective wisdom beyond there is a state law, this would implement on a local level 23 what's required, it's consistent with what were objectives in adopting the Housing Element. It's 24 not been an area of heavy activity in the past nor is it really expected to be an area of heavy 25 activity going forward although it's definitely the intention of the City to encourage the 26 development of Below Market Rate housing as part of achieving our overall objectives. 27 28 I would support the idea from Chair Martinez to move the approval of the ordinance as drafted. 29 Not On a trial basis but just as any ordinance and any ordinance that's adopted is subject to 30 further review and amendment. I would say that the interest that sometimes comes up, I know I 31 have an interest in relationship to the new incentives and the PC project at Lytton Gateway came 32 up without having any financial information presented to the Commission I found it completely 33 nonsensical to have that discus8ion about what were the benefits and what was the value and why 34 and was it reasonable. Here I think the answer and advice from Deputy A ssistant City Attorney 35 Silver about the very narrow application of the pro forma information only to the extent that 36 concession is sought beyond that which is an already sort of generous and comprehensive menu 37 of possibilities something is a very rational· and reasonable way to provide an additional 38 incentive. If it's not sought then there's no reason for anybody to submit or disclose pro forma 39 information that they otherwise don 'twant to disclose. So I think that very narrow and 40 reasonable part of the ordinance should definitely not be struck nor should it be taken as an 41 expression of our philosophy as a Commission regarding our appetite for digesting finanCial 42 information which varies very much by each Commissioner. But I think we're ready to entertain 43 aMotion. 44 45 Chair Martinez: Not quite yet. First Commissioner Alcheck and then ... 46 47 Commissioner A lcheck: I was going to ask the exact same question. I was going to suggest a 48 trial. 49 17 1 Chair Martinez: Ok. Yes, Commissioner'Keller. You have three minutes. 2 3 Commissioner Keller: Sure. ' I have trouble reading the childcare facility. I don't understand 4 what it means. It says, "Additional Density Bonus that is an i:Dnount of square feet of residential 5 space that is equal to or greater than the square footage of the childcare facility." Looks like one 6 of these questions on a'SAT test that I can't figure out what they mean. Can you tell me what 7 that means? Could you give me an example of what that means? Sorry, page 12 of the 8 ordinance. 9 10 Mr. Wong: Yeah, Commissioner Keller if you provide 10,000 square feet of childcare in a 11 residential development you get an additional 10,000 square feet. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: Ok I'm not sure that's what it reads because it says, '~n additional 14 Density B onus that is the amount of the square foot of the residential space that is equal to or 15 greater than the square footage of the childcare facility." So you're saying something about 16 residential space and you're comparing that to the childcare facility and the way I read that is 17 that's the part that's the excess-of the childcarefacility? I think it's, I think you need to clarify 18 what you mean. If you really mean that you're adding to the amount that you add the square 19 footage that is the amount of the square footage of childcare facility then say that. 'If that's what 20 you mean it's too many words to say that and it's pretty ambiguous from my point of view. 21 22 Chair Martinez: Ok. Point well taken so they'll work on it. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: I have a few suggestions on how to, with respect to what the Chair said 25 about quantifying the kind of concessions. I have some suggestions along those lines. So for 26 concession one, which is -reduce side yard setback, I would suggest that that be reduce side yard 27 setback on one side and I would exclude not only design, consistent with design guidelines but 28 also exclude special setbacks. , Because sometimes you're on a comer and there's a special 29 setback on that side. For example, A lma Street or Charleston there are special setbacks and I 30 would not want to go inside that. Similarly for two and three I would exclude special setbacks 31 for all three of those. So you can't achieve a concession that gets you closer to the street than 32 when they have, when we have one of those special setbacks for that street. Because those are 33 standard, I'm not sure whether those are considered design guidelines, but they're standard. And 34 I think they're called, aren't they called special setbacks? A m I correct in that? 35 36 M r. Williams: Y es they are called special setbacks. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: A nd I would not want people exceeding that. You know, limiting on that. 39 With respect to number four, concession four I believe you talked about restrictedqffordable 40 units as opposed to affordable unit. So that's an additional word that you talked about adding. 41 With respect to five I don't have any comment on that per se. With respectto six, reduction of 42 daylight plane requirement on one side as opposed to in all directions, but on one side. So each 43 day light plane you do is its own concession. With respect to seven I'd leave that ,alone. With 44 respect to eight I'd separate private and public space. So a reduction of private space is one 45 concession with reduction in public open space is a separate concession. So if you split those out 46 those are two separate concessions. I would delete nine because it's already by right. So there's 47 no reason to have it as a concession here. 48 18 1 I would put two other concessions however. So one more concession is the public open space is 2 now nine and ten is exceeding the 35 foot height limit adjacent to residential. So that is a 3 separate concession because we have a citywide rule that says if you're adjacent to residential, 4 neighborhood residential zone you can't exceed the 35 height limit and that should be its own 5 separate concession. 6 7 Mr. Williams: You mean separate from the height concession? 8 9 Commissioner Keller: Yes. 10 11 Mr. Williams: So it's a concession to exceed 35 feet but then it's a concession to exceed it under 12 the height provision is a separate concession? 13 14 Commissioner Keller: That's right because you're exceeding two different rules. So the issue is 15 that that's actually a separate prov ision on the code so you have to use up two concessions when 16 you're adjacent to residential if you're going to exceed the height limit there. Ok? So think 17 about that. 18 19 In addition this, these are by right concessions as I understand them with the exception of the 20 discretionary one where they, where there's a dispute on whether they should have a profonna. 21 However, if they're going to use a discretionary process then they should use the discretionary 22 process not the by right process. Combining the two is problematic. So I would say that if you 23 used these, if you used this ordinance that this ord{nance does not apply when use a PC, a PTOD, 24 or a variance or a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). If you do any of those, which are 25 extra things you get then use those and not this. You don't get to double dip. 26 27 Finally, what was mentioned by one member of the public is the issue of rental conversion to 28 condo. The problem is that we need to make surethat our rental conversion to condo ordinance 29 is consistent with this. And part of the consistency that needs to happen is that the BMR units 30 that are required in the conversion to condo have to take into account the ones that they achieve 31 for the, that they got from the concessions for the rental units. So in addition to the 15 percent 32 units that you have to have BMR for the conversion to condo you have to add to that all the units 33 they got, all the units that they offered for getting the concessions for the rental housing. So that 34 needs to be added to it. Ok? 35 36 I, the ordinance is I assume clear, but I'm not sure of this whether the ordinance is clear on 37 whether there are concessions for fewer than five units. It talks about the ordinance being 38 effective for more than five units. But it could probably say that it doesn't, that no concessions 39 are allowed for under f;;ve units and it's, I think that being explicit makes sense. 40 41 A nd I would remove tandem parking from 18.15.050 (A). I don't see why we should provide by 42 right tandem parking. Essentially what that would do is it would provide tandem parking an 43 entire complex and tandem parking is problematic. And I would actually rather than passing the 44 ordinance as is I would actually prefer passing the ordinance on with these changes if people 45 would like to discuss them. 46 47 Chair Martinez: Let me as staff. Would you prefer that you come back with some revisions? 48 This is a lot of items. Or do you want us to try-to hammer out a Motion with a lot of ugly 49 amendments to it? 19 1 2 °Mr. Williams: No, I would say that if a majority of you feel like you want us to address those 3 amendments that we should just take in what's been suggested and come back to you with 4 something that's cleaner. 5 6 Chair Martinez: I don't want to suggest though that everything that we said has to be revised. 7 8 Mr. Williams: Right. 9 10 Chair Martinez: For example there may be a good reason for including tandem parking. I don' t 11 know. Maybe tandem parking isn't part of the parking cap it's just tandem parking as it 12 normally is. So I would like to see you come back but on those items on this laundry list that 13 you don't choose to incorporate just provide a reason why that you choose a different strategy on 14 that. 15 16 Commissioner Keller: Chair? 17 18 Chair Martinez: ,Y eah, Commissioner Keller. 19 20 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. There's one other thing that I left off which was brought up 21 by several of the other Commissioners and I think useful in this. And that is that concessions 22 one, two, three, andfive would not be eligible. Sony, one, two, three, andfour. Actually I'm 23 not sure exactly which ones of them would not be eligible, but would not be eligible to be 24 applied adjacent to Rl, R2 or RMD. So in a situation where you have Rl, R2 or RMD then you 25 can't apply the daylight plane, you can't apply the setback on the side that's adjacent to that. 26 You can apply on the side that's not adjacent to that, but to avoid adjacency issues on the side 27 that's adjacent to Rl, R2 or RMD you can't do the setback or daylight plane or that kind of stuff. 28 So I'm not sure exactly which ones apply, but certainly we need to think about restricting it in 29 that way. Thank you. 30 31 Chair Martinez: Stiff are we under a time constraint here? Does this have to get done by 32 February the 6th or some number? 33 34 M r. W illiams: No. 35 36 Chair Martinez: So, I know. I read 2005 and so we're on schedule. Ok. Just so that we can 37 continue this. Commissioner A lcheck. 38 39 Commissioner Alcheck: I would like to, if it comes back and includes this pro forma piece, 40 which I'm encouraging it doesn't I would like to know what the stiff feels is the purpose and 41 whether or not the staff feels like that's necessary for them to be, for this evaluation. Because I 42 don't thinko that the report actually provides that explanation. So that's my last comment. 43 44 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 45 46 Commissioner Tanaka: So I just want to comment on the concessions because I think it actually 47 makes sense for it to come back to us because it's not urgent, it's not frequently used, and in 48 while I in general I like the idea of trials if we have a big mistake I think it could also be a 49 problem. But can stiff as they go through this try to quantify like reduced side yard setback? Is 20 1 that reduced mean get rid of it completely? Does it mean reduce it by one foot? I mean I guess 2 that's the kind of thing that I would like to know. What does reduce mean? Reduce by how 3 much? Because if it's just afoot it's probably not a big deal, but if it's the whole thing is gone 4 that could be a big deal. So maybe if that could be, anywhere you can if you have some sort of 5 quantification of that I think that would be a good idea. 6 7 And then one thing about height, I just feel that's kind of a hot topic for the community and 8 maybe that's kind of the height exception you really should hit the Planning Commission or City 9 CounciL I don't know if it should be by right. So that's another thing. That's my two cents. 10 I'm not sure other Commissioners agree with that, but I think .height's a really hot topic and the 11 otherones maybe are ok to have sort of quantification of, but height and automatic 50 foot seems 12 a bit much. That's it. Thank you. 13 14 Chair Martinez: Seeing no other hands let's end this item for tonight. Thank you very much. 15 Thank you (interrupted) 16 17 M r.W illiams: Did you close the public hearing? 18 19 Chair Martinez: Oh. I will. 20 21 Mr. Williams: I just want ·to make sure because we will have to notice it again as a public 22 hearing. 23 24 Chair Martinez: I'm sorry do (interrupted) 25 26 Mr. Williams: Should we close it or not? Does it matter? 27 28 Chair Martinez: Yes? 29 30 Ms. Silver: No, we should keep it open. 31 32 Mr. Williams: But ifwe don't know what date it's coming back then we have to notice it. 33 34 Chair Martinez:. That's a good idea. We're going to do that. Commissioner Keller. . 35 36 MOTION 37 38 Commissioner Keller: May I make aMotion to continue this item to a date uncertain giving staff 39 an opportunity to respond to our comments. 40 41 SECOND AND VOTE 42 43 Chair Martinez: Ok there's a Motion and we have a second? Seconded by Commissioner 44 Tanaka. Those in favor, do you want to comment on that? No. Those in favor of the Motion 45 say aye (Aye). Motion passes unanimously with Commissioner Panelli absent and one empty 46 chair. I want to close the public hearing and thank you all for this. I think it will be better. 47 48 MOTION PASSED (5-0-1-1, Commissioner Panelli absent and one empty chair) 49 21 Attachment D • CITY OF PALO ALTO City of Palo Alto (10 # 3347) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 1/9/2013 Summary Title: Density Bonus Ordinance Title: -Review and Recommendation to City Council to Adopt New Chapte'r 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus) to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Government Code Section 65915 From: Tim Wong, Senior Planner Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and recommend to City Council to Adopt New Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus) to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal, Code to Implement Government Code Section 65915 Background The State Density Bonus law (Section 65915 of the Government Code) was first adopted in 1979. The law allows developers who offer affordable units in their developments a density bonus above what the zoning ordinance would typically allow. Originally, developers received a density bonus of 25% if they met the density bonus requirements. In 2004, the State legislature passed SB 18181 which significantly amended Section 65915 of the Government Code. The significant changes to the law, effective on January 11 2005, included: • A higher maximum market-rate unit density bonus of 35% for a lower percentage of affordable units provided; • A sliding scale of market-rate density bonus percentages from 20%-35% depending' on the percentage of affordable units provided; • Provision for up to three (3) development concessions or incentives, depending on the percentage of affordable units provided; City of Palo Alto Page 1 • Granting the developer a density bonus if they donate land for very low income housing; and • Required jurisdictions to implement Density Bonus law through local codes. In the past, the City has applied the Density Bonus law on an ad hoc basis to both market rate and affordable deve'lopments. Palo Alto Family Apartments, located at 801 Alma Street and developed by Eden Housing, is a 50 unit affordable rental development. Eden requested concessions to encroach into the required setbacks, exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FARJ and to not provide private useable open space. The development at 195 Page Mill Road also requested concessions to allow residential uses in the General Manufacturing (GM) zoning district and to exceed the maximum FAR in return for providing 17 affordable housing units (20% of the total units). The 2007-2014 Draft Housing Element Update includes a draft program (Program 3.1.10) requiring that a density bonus ordinance be adopted that is consistent with Government Code 65915. Staff anticipates that density bonus will be an important tool to help the City accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. On October 19, 2011, the PTC conducted a study session regarding Government Code Section 65915 and the SB 1818 amendments. The purpose of the study session was to provide staff 'with direction for the preparation of the City's draft ordinance. The discussion was focused primarily on allowable concessions and an evaluation of the reasonableness of the requested concession(s). Staff provided the density bonus ordinances from the City of San Mateo and City of Santa Monica as reference for PTC review. The ordinances from those jurisdictions were chosen based on their differing approaches to granting concessions for proposed developments. The City of Santa Monica's ordinance was more detailed in its requirements in granting concessions. The Santa Monica code also placed' quantified limits on the types of concessions offered. In addition, if the developer did not choose one of the concessions on the menu, a noticed public hearing was required to review the concession(s) proposed by the developer. The City of San Mateo's ordinance contained broader concessions with no quantified thresholds or limitations on the City's acceptance., PTC Study Session At the October 19 meeting, common themes voiced by the PTC members related to height limits, the relationship between the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) program requirements and density bonus concessions and financial documentation submittal. City of Palo Alto Page 2 1. A concern was raised that a developer, with the use of the concession(s), could circumvent height limits and/or other zoning requirements without the City's ability to review the impacts. Staff responded that the City could deny the concession request if the concession was not needed to produce the affordable housing. 2. Another concern was eligibility for a concession through the City's BMR requirement. The City's BMR ordinance requires ,a developer set aside 15% of the units in the development as affordable units. By providing the required 15%, the developer also met the eligibility requirements to request one concession. Therefore, the developer would receive a concession by meeting a City requirement. There was discussion of requiring the developerto meet the BMR requirements and any additional affordable housing units beyond the required 15% would be eligible for density bonus. While 'the law is still not clear whether a local BMR requirement automatically triggers a Density Bonus, staff believes a reasonable interpretation of State law is that a charter city can impose BMRrequirements on a development without triggering density bonus. Therefore the draft ordinance has been revised to require the applicant to fulfill their BMR requirements prior to receiving Density Bonus credit. 3. Request for Financial Documentation. The PTC discussed the possibility of requesting financial documentation as evidence for the necessity of the concession request. However, the PTC, as a land use advisory board, was unsure if it could request financial documentation. Staff has researched other jurisdictions and determined t~at it is appropriate to request such information, at least when requests are made to exceed the minimum thresholds outlined. The PTC directed staff to prepare a City draft ordinance similar to the style of the Santa Monica ordinance and their menu of concessions. Summary of Key Issues The draft density bonus ordinance has been prepared using the City of Santa Monica ordinance as a model. The comments by the PTC have been integrated into the draft ordinance. Draft Density Bonus Ordinance Staff worked with the City Attorney in preparing the draft density bonus ordinance. Some of the more relevant sections of the ordinance include: 1. Implementation (Sec. 18.15.030) - City of Palo Alto Page 3 • The ordinance applies when the development includes five or more residential units; • Developers can request up to a maximum density bonus of 35% depending on the number of affordable units and the level of affordability, and • Affordable units provided through the City BMR program are not applied toward Density Bonus eligibility. ~. Development Standards (Sec. 18.15.040) - • The required units are to be built on-site and shall be generally equivalent in size, fixtures and finishes to the market rate units; • The affordability term will' be 59 years for rental and for ownership units in accordance with the City's BMR program, and • Includes the option for offsite development of the affordable units. 3. Development Concessions and Incentives (Sec. 18.15.050) - • A menu of the concessions was created for both residential and commercial projects, listing the more commonly requested concessions of setbacks, floor area ratio (FAR) and height limit. These concessions would be granted without additional review; • Any concession not on the menu of concessions would require additional review and approval by the Approval Authority. The Approval Authority is determined by the underlying discretionary permit application. • Financial information will be requested to document the financial necessity of the concession if the requested concession is not on the menu of concessions; • It is not necessary to request a density bonus in order to request concessions, and • The City Council has the discretion to allow more generous concessions for developments that are 100% affordable. 4. Waiver/Modification of Development Standards (Sec. 18.15.060) • State 'law also allows the applicant to request a waiver or modification of development standards if such standards would physically preclude the construction of the proposed development at the increased density with· the incorporated concessions and incentives. The ordinance requires the applicant to demonstrate that without the waiver or modification, the development standards would physically preclude the construction of the development at the site. City of Palo Alto Page 4 5. Child Care Facilities (Sec. 18.15.070) - • Housing developments providing child care facilities may also take advantage of density bonus and concessions. 6. Application Requirements (Sec. 18.15.080) - • Outlines the procedure for developers to request density bonus and concessions, and • Those concessions requested not listed in Section 18.15.050 would require aoditional review, including submittal of financial information. 7. Review Procedures (Sec. 18.15.090) - • Outlines the process if the developer chooses a concession not on the menu, and • As part of the public hearing, the Approval Authority will need to make separate findings for the granting of the concessions. 8. Regulatory Agreement (Section 18.15.100) -All density bonus development will be required to enter into a regulatory agreement. • The Agreement will designate the units, affordability term and level of affordability. Policy Implications The proposed density bonus ordinance is consistent with the policies and programs in the current and proposed Housing Element. Program H-38 of the current Housing Element calls for the adoption of a revised density bonus program ordinance. Since this was not completed, it remains a program in the Housing Element update. In the draft Housing Element update, a program stipulating the adoption of a density bonus ordinance (Program 3.1.10) has been transferred from the current Housing Element. The draft ordinance meets the requirements of the program. Timeline Subsequent to consideration and recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission, the City Council will consider the ordinance at a scheduled and noticed additional public hearing. City of Palo Alto PageS Environmental Review The proposed Ordinance revises the requirements for granting a residential density bonus to . comply.with revisions to State law enacted by the Legislature through the adoption of Senate Bill 1818. Adoption of the draft density bonus will only codify allowances that developers have been able to use in housing developments since 2005. The revisions modify the criteria and incentives offered to qualifying developments but do not authorize construction not already permitted under the City's existing codes. It is uncertain how many project applicants will seek to utilize the provisions of State law and this Ordinance and where such projects might be located in the City. Further, each individual project will be subject to its own environmental review. Consequently, the attached proposed ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. Attachments: • Attachment_A_ORD_ Residential_ Density_ Bonus_ with~ Menu (PDF) (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 6 ATTACHMENT A Not Yet Approved Ordinance No. --- Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting New Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement Government Code Section 65915 The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares as follows: A. B. effective on January 1, 2005, included: ns to implement Density Bonus law through C. ast, t he City has applied the Density Bonus law on an ad hoc basis to both market r ndaffordable developments. Palo Alto Family Apartments, located at 801 ~Jrha Street and developed by Eden Housing, is a 50 unit affordable rental development. Eden.requested concessions to encroach into the required setbacks, exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and to not provide private useable open space. The development at 195 Page Mill Road also requested concessions to allow residential uses in the General Manufacturing (GM) zoning district and to exceed the maximum FAR in return for providing 17 affordable housing units (20% of the total units). D. The 2007-2014 Draft Housing Element Update includes a draft program (Program 3.1.10) requiring that a density bonus ordinance be adopted that is consistent 1 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved with Government Code 65915. Staff anticipates that density bonus will be an important tool to help the City accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Aliocation ·(RHNA) numbers. SECTION 2. Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby. added to read as follows: Sections: 18.15.010 18.15.020 18.15.030 18.15.040 18.15.050 18.15.060 18.15.070 18.15.080 18.15.090 18.15.100 Chapter 18.15 Purpose Definitions Density Bonuses Development Standards for Affordable Units " Development Concessions and Inc.entives Waiver/Modification of Dev opm ~ Standards Child Care Facilities '\ Application Reqllirement~ Review Proced u re ; Regulatory Agreerhen (a) .CQ~p'ly with the stqte density bonus law under California Government Code section 65919. . (b) Establi ' procedures for implementing state density bonus requirements as set forth in California Gover ment Code Section 65915, as amended. (c) Facilitate the development of affordable housing consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. 18.15.020 Definitions' Whenever the following terms are used in this Chapter, they shall have the meaning established by this section: 2 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (a) "Affordable Rent" means monthly rent, including a reasonable allowance for utilities and all fees for housing services, for rental Restricted Affordable Units reserved for Very Low or Lower Income Households, that does not exceed the following: (i) Very Low Income: 50 percent of the area median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for presumed household size, multiplied by 30 percent and divided by 12. (ii) Lower income: 60 percent of the area median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for presumed household size, multiplied by 30 percent and divided by 12. (b) "Affordable Sales Price" means the maximu.,.,-. ... __ Lower and Moderate Income Households can qualify for t Units as set forth in the City of Palo Alto's Below Market R shall be considered affordable only if it is based on a reaso housing payments (including interest~ principal, mortgage in'SUtJanee., assessments, fire and casualty insurance, homeowners ass6ciati and repairs, and a reasonable allowance for utilities), ,all as determl equal to or less than: (i) adjusted for presumed household size, m (ii) Lower Income,: 70 per adjusted for presumed household . which Very Low, tricted Affordable 'i! area median income for Santa Clara ultiplied by 30 ,percent and divided, by 12. (d) "Appr Development as specifie orityu means the person or body that is auth9rized to approve a the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. (e) "Below Market Rate Housing Program" means Chapter 18.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Administrative Guidelines for the Below Market Rate Program. (f) "Child Care Facility" means a child day care facility other than a family day care home, including, but not limited to, infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and school age child care centers. (g) "Concession or Incentive" as used interchangeably means such regulatory concessions as specified in Government Code Section 65915(k) to include: 3 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (i) A reduction of site Development Standards or architectural design requirements . which exceed the minimum applicable building standards approved by the State Building Standards Commission pursuant to Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety-Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback, coverage, and/or parking requirements which resultin identifiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reductions; (ii) Allowing mixed use development in conjunction with the proposed residential development, if nonresidential land uses will reduce the cost of the r, identlal project and the nonresidential land uses are compatible with the residential-project a' sting or planned development in the area where the Development will be I tated; and . (iii) .Other regulatory Concessions proposed by t e ~pncant or th in identifiable financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions, (h) "Density Bonus" means a density increa..~e over the Ma~i u ~'esidential . Density granted pursuant to Government Code SeGiion'6S915 and this' rdlnance. (i) "Density Bonus Units" means tho~ dw ling un; anted pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter which exceed the othetwis~ Maximdm l\esidential Density for the development site. (j) "Development" means lJ developments pursuant t o a proposal to construct or place fjve (5) or mor:e'<a(f4ftlonii1 dV:;elling ril on a lot or contiguous lots including, without limitation, a pl~ned unit eve~pment, site plan, stfbdivision, or conversion of a non residential b~fding to dwelling units. "Development Stan " means a site or construction condition such as a height limitatjpnj setback, or a fl 0 area ratio, that applies to a Development pursuant to any ordinance, gen 17 an element,.sJ1ecific plan, charter, or other City condition, law, policy, resolution, or reg~ atton .. A "si e.and construction condition" is a development regulation or law that specifies the h~'ca , aevelopment of a site and buildings on the site in a Development. (I) :'Discretionarj Permit" means any permit issuJed for the Develop'ment which requires the ex~rcise of judgment or deliberation from the Approval Authority, including but not limited to conditional use permits, variances, site plans, design review, planned development permits, general and specific plan approvals and amendments, zoning amendments, and tentative and parcel maps. (m) "Lower, Very Low, or Moderate Income" means annual income of a household that does not exceed the maximum income limits for the income category, as adjusted for household size, applicable to Santa Clara County, as published and periodically 4 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved updated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Sections50079.5, SOlOS, or 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code~ (n) "Maximum Residential Densityll means the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in the Development by the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance at the time of application, excluding the provisions of this Chapter. If the Development is a planned community zone, the Maximum Residential Density shall be determined on the basis of the Comprehensive Plan and the maximum density of the previous zone designation. If the maximum density allowed by the Zoning Ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed by the Land Use E~ e of th _ City's Comprehensive Plan, the land Use Element density t . rev • . (o) "Non-Restricted Unitll means all dwelling u J the Restricted Affordable Units. (p) (q) IIQualifying Residentll means se a Senior Citizen Housing Develop (r) nit" means a dwelling unit within a Development which Ie Rent or Affordable Sales Price for sale or rent to Very me households. (t) ousing Development" means a Development consistent with the California Fal ployment and Housing Act (Government Code Section 12900 et. seq., including ". 955~9 in particular), which has been "designed to meet the physical and social needs of senior citizens," and which otherwise qualifies as "housing for older persons" as that phrase is used in the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (P.l. 100-430) and implementing regul~tions (24 CFR, part 100, subpart E), and as that phrase is used in California Civil Code Section 51.2 and 51.3.1 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. ~ 5 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (a) The City shall grant a 20 percent (20%) Density Bonus when an applica nt for a Development of five (5) or more dwelling units seeks and agrees to construct at least anyone of the following in accordance with the requirements of this Section and Government Code Section 65915: (i) At least 10 percent (10%) of the total dwelling units of the Development as Restricted Affordable Units affordable to lower Income Households. For each one percent (1%) increase in the percentage of restricted lower Income units, a DevelopiTleRt w'lJ recei~e an additional one and one-half percent (1.5%) densi "Irty-five percent (35%) of the Maximum Residential De sity; or (iii) (iv) (b) e percent (5%) Density Bonus when an applicant fo t a .five (5 r '" ;' additional dwelling units seeks and agrees to construct, in a nce wit . e requirements of this Section and Government Code ection 659~'5, at least 10 percent (10%) of the total dwelling . units in a common inte est development as defined in California Civil Code S· " 'on 1351 for Moijerate Income Households, provided that all dwelling units In ' tl,1>.evelopmel') are offered to the public for purchase. For each one percent 130102 jb 0131030 (1%~ ncrease in e percentage of restricted Moderate Income units, a Develop.",ent" nil receive an additional one percent (1%) density bonus up to thirty-fiv cent (35%) of the Maximum Residential Density. (c) No additional Density Bonus shall be authorized for a Senior Citizen Development or Qualifying Mobilehome Park beyond the Density Bonus authorized by subsection (a) of this Section. (d) When calcu"lating 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 6 Not Yet Approved of Restricted Affordable Units required to be dedicated pursuant to this Section and Government Code Section 65915(b). (e) 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. Density bonuses from more than one category may not be combined. In no case shall a Development be entitled to a Density Bonus of 0 e t n th°r:ty-five percent (35%). (f) The Density Bonus Units shall not b number of Restricted Affordable Units requ il'1 When calculating the required number of Res ,. . ,any resulting decimal fraction shall be rounded t the e larger integer. (g) o' e City's Below CJetermining the other entitlement under t i impact or in lieu fee shall alify for a Density Bonus or e payment of a housing De lty Bonus or other entitlement underthis Chapter. ..,. men ay be eligible for a Density Bonus in return for ant to the requirements set forth in Government Code ndominium conversion may be eligible for a Density Bonus or O~~$&id;Ypu rsuant to the requirements set forth in Government Code 591505. (i) Notwithstanding any provision of this Chapter, all DeveJopments must satisfy all applicable requirements of the City's Below Market Rate Housing Program, 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. Table 1 Density Bonus Summary Table 7 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved Additional Percentage Bonus for of Restricted Each 1% Units Minimum Percentage Increase in Required for Percentage of of Density Restricted Maximum Restricted Affordable Restricted . Bonus Affordable 35% Density Units or Category Affordable Units Granted Units Bonus Very Low Income 5% 20% 2.50% 11% Lower Income 10% 20% 1.50% 20% Moderate Income 10% 5% .. .« ""'t l 1% .. 40% Senior Citizen Housing 100% 20% 0"--. ~~. T __ :, " ------ Qualifying Mobile Park ' 100% 20i . . z--------.;..: .... '. r--Note: A density bonus may be selected from only one category up to maximum of ,,"" the Maximum Residential Density. , " 18~15.040 Development Standards for AffordaBle t:htits . (a) Restricted Affordable Units shall be nnrutted concurrently with Non- In the Regulatory (b) (c) '~etermining the ximum Affordable Rent or Affordable Sales Price of Restricted AffQt ble Ufl tt, the presumed household size as set forth in the City's Below Market Rate HQl(s' Program shall be used, unless the Development is subject to different assum~ons imposed by other governmental regulations. (d) Restricted Affordable Units shall be built on-site and be dispersed within the Development, except as permitted in subsection (e) of this Section. The number of bedrooms of the Restricted Affordable Units shall be equivalent to the bedroom mix of the Non-Restricted Units in the Development; except that the applicant may include a higher proportion. of Restricted Affordable Units with more bedrooms. The design, appearance and general quality of the Restricted Affordable Units shall be compatible with the design of the Non-Restricted Units in the Development. The Development shall comply with all applicable Development Standards, except those which may be mOdified as provided by this Chapter. 8 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (e) Circumstances may arise in which the City Council finds that the public interest would be served by allowing some or all of the Restricted Affordable Units associated with one Development to be produced and operated at an alternative development site. Where the applicant and the City form such an agreement, the· resulting linked developments shall be considered a single Development for purposes of this Chapter. Under these circumstances, the applicant shall be subject to the same requirements established by this Chapter for the Restricted Affordable Units to be provided on the alternative site. (f) A Regulatory Agreement, as described in Sec,,'" ,jJ'",,,,,,,,,, condition of the Discretionary Permits for all Devel ( ments p t:.,..--..,;:--~--.::Io The Regulatory Agreement shall be recorded as a r ictio n th Regulatory Agreement shall be consistent with the elow Mar ... _.-.,. .• ¥: using program guidelines. 18.15.050 Development Concessions and Incentives This Section includes provisions for provi Government Code Section 65915. (a) (iii) om unit: two and one-half parking spaces. spaces required results in a fractional number, it shall be rounded up to the next ~ Ie number. For purposes of this subsection, this parking may be provided through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through on-street parking. (b) Other Incentives and Concessions. A Development is eligible for other Concessions or Incentives as follows: 130102 jb 0131030 (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 9 Not Yet Approved 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. (ii) Two Concessions or Incentives for a Development that makes at least twenty percent (20%) 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. 5% 10% 15% 10% 20% 30% 10% 20% 30% 1 2 3 (c) In submitt AI a request for Concessions or Incentives, an applicant may request the specific Conc., sions set forth below. The following Concessions and Incentives are .N deemed not to flavea specific adverse impact as defined in Section 18.15.090 (b)(ii). (i) Reduced side yard setback requirement if the design is consistent with the design guidelines, where applicable, for the area; (ii) Reduced front yard setback requirements so long as setback is consistent with the design guidelines, where applicable, for the area; (iii) Reduced rear yard setback requirements so long as the setback is consistent with the design guidelines, where applicable, for the area; 10 130102 jb 0131030 (e) Not Yet Approved (iv) A percentage increase in the height limit equal to the Density Bonus percentage for which the Development-is eligible if necessary to accommodate the Restricted Affordable Units, with a maximum increase of one foot per Affordable Unit, and no event to exceed fifty (50) feet; (v) Up to fifty percent(50%) increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or up to the square footage of the Restricted Affordable Units, whichever is less; (vi) Reduction in daylight plane requirement~; (vii) (viii) Reduction in private or public open s (ix) Reductions in required parking consis ent Section. Ication of Development Standards An applicant for a waiver or modification of Development Standards that will have the effect of physi precluding the construction of a Development at the densities or with the Concessions 0 ncentives permitted by this Chapter. The developer 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. 18.15.070 Child Care Facilities (a) When an applicant proposes to construct a Development that is eligible for a Density Bonus under Section 18.15.030 and includes a child care facility that will be 11 130102 jb 0131030 \ . Not Yet Approved located on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to, the Development, the City shall grant either: (b) (i) An additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet of residential space that is equal to or greater than the square footage of the child care facility; or (ii) An additional Concession or Il'1centive that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the child care facility. (i) (ii) fa 'ility, the children of Very hall equal a percentage that is stricted Affordable Units in the (c) Notwithstanding ~b tions (a and (b) above, the City shall not be required to pro~lde a density bonus o~ 'Concession or Incentive for a child care facility if it finds, a ed on substantial evidence, that the community has adequate child care facilities. Applicatio . equirements An application ~r it Bensity Bonus, Incentive, Concession, waiver, modification or revised parking standa ra. II be made as follows: (a) An application 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 ona form prescribed by the City and shall include the following information: 130102 jb 0131030 (i) A brief description of the proposed Development, including the total number of dwelling units, Restricted Affordable Units,and Density Bonus Units proposed. 12 130102jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (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) If a Concession or Incentive is requested, a brief explanation as to the actual cost reduction achieved through the Con~ssio ",or Incentive and how the cost reduction allows the applicant to provid . st Affordable Units. (v) If a waiver or modification is reques' Development Standard would physically pre u Development with the Density Bonus, Incenti (vi) Incentive not included within the menu of rthin subsec Ion (a) of Section 18.1:5.050 or in "ie Concessions and Incentives result in 'Sufficie . nd actual cost reductions. The cost of ro forma or other financial data, including, bljt not e City of hiring a consultant to review the financial data, pplicant. The pro forma shall include all of the following e actual cost reduction achieved through the Concession; tP1 Evidence that the cost reduction allows the applicant to provide affordable rents or affordable sales prices; and (C) Other information requested by the Planning Director. The Planning Director may require any pro forma include information regarding capital costs, equity investment, debt service, projected revenues, operating expenses, and such other information as is required to evaluate the pro forma; 13 (d) Not Yet Approved (ix) If a waiver or modification of a Development Standard is requested, the applicant shall provide evidence that the Development Standard for which the waiver is requested will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the Development with the Density Bonus and Concessions requested; (x) 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) . Review Pro,etiures An applicatiol1ifor a Density Bonus, Incentive, Concession, waiver, modification or revised parking standare:f s 11 be acted upon by the Approval Authority concurrently with the application for the firstJ)lscretionary Permit. The granting of a Density Bonus shall not be deemed approval of th~ entire Project or approval of any subsequent discretionary permit. (a) Before approving an application for a Density Bonus, Incentive, Concession, waiver, modification or revised parking standard, the Approval Authority shall make the following findings, as applicable: (i) The Development is eligible for the Density Bonus and any Concessions, waivers, modifications, or revised parking standards requested. 14 130102 jb 0131030 (b) I , I 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (ii) Any requested Concession or Incentive will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions based upon the financial analysis and documentation provided. The City finds that the Concessions and Incentives included in Section 18.50.050(c) will result in identifiable, financially suffic!ent, and actual cost reductions. (iii) If the Density Bonus is based all or in part on donation of land, a finding that all the requirements included in Government Code Section 65915(g) have been met. (iv) If the density bonus or Concession is of a child care facility, a finding that all the m Government Code Section 65915(h) have be ,D· "'-"''llar (v) If the Concession includes mixed-use' (vi) If a waiver or modificatio s requ~JI4C"t"lo.. Standards for which the waiver i reque precluding the constructiot tH Concessions permitted. {r __ , . The Conce $ n would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or tV ' r the p ysical environment or on real property listed in the California Regist .. of' ric Resources, andthere is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate r oid the specific adverse impact without rendering the Develop#,~nt unaffordable to low and Moderate 'Income households. For the purpose of this subsection, "specific adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the Development was deemed complete; or (iii) The Concession is contrary to state or federal law. 15 Not Yet Approved (c) If the findings required by subsection (a) of this section can be made, the Approval Authority may deny a request for a waiver only if it makes one of the following written findings, supported by substantial evidence: (i) That the waiver would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or the physical environment, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the Development unaffordable to Low and Moderate Income households. For the purpose of this subsection, "specific adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based 0 objec ' e, identified, written public health or safety standards, poli . con Ions as they existed on the date that the application for the resi.ntial pro . was deemed complete; or (ii) That the waiver would have an advers ' listed in the California Register of Historic Resources; or (iii) If the Approval Authority is not the City denying a Density Bonus, iiard may be appealed to the Incentive, Concession, waiver, modificati or r City Council within fourteen days of the ate of the 18.15.100 (a) (b) tion of the agreement by all parties, the completed Density Bonus Regulatory AgrQement, or memorandum thereof, shall be recorded and the conditions filed and recorded on the Development. (c) The approval of the Regulatory Agreement shall take place prior to tentative map approval, and recordation shall take place prior to final map approval, or, where a map is not being processed, prior to Architectural Review approval. The Regulatory Agreement shall be binding to all future owners and successors in· interest. (d) The Regulatory Agreement shall be consistent with the guidelines of the City's Below Market Rate Program and shall include at a minimum the following: 16 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved (i) The total number of dwelling units approved for the Development, including the number of Restricted Affordable Units; (ii) A description of the household income group to be accommodated by the Restricted Affordable Units, and the standards for determining the corresponding Affordable Rent or Affordable Sales Price; (iii) The location, dwelling unit sizes (square feet), and number of bedrooms of the Restricted Affordable Units; (iv) Term of use restrictions for Restrict years for both rental units and for-sale uni ; (v) A schedule for completion and occup (vi) (viii) Other provisi Section . Ie Units; . re ~ ment (the City may i beneficiaries under the 'the propos I. ~oinance revises the requirements for granting a r "(tential d,ensity bonu o . omply <.~th revisions to State law enacted by the • a re through the ado ti · n of Senate Bill 181ft Adoption of the draft density ., on co ifies allowance'S t developers have been able to use in housing develo since 2005. , rther, the revisions modify the criteria and incentives .'GlJlaJll!Ving deve1 pments but do not authorize construction not already permitted u ". ~ . s existing codes. Also, it is uncertain how many project applicants will s " utilize the provisions of State law and this Ordinance and where such projects mi t be located in the City. Further, each individual project will be subject to its ow'n environmental review. Consequently, this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given 17 130102 jb 0131030 Not Yet Approved effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATrEST: 130102 jb 0131030 18 Mayor APPROVED:· City Manager Director of Planning & Community Environment ATTACHMENT B 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 October 19, 2011 4 5 EXCERPT 6 7 8 Residential Density Bonus and Concessions Ordinance to Implement State Government 9 Code Section 65915 (aka SB1818). 10 11 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Is there anybody else? I assume not. We have three items on our 12 agenda tonight. The first is a Study Session regarding the Housing Density Bonus and the 13 concessions, ordinance related to state law 65915, something like that. I would like to welcome 14 our·new Senior Planner, Tim Wong. Welcome to the lion's den. We are going to begin with 15 staff report. 16 17 Mr. Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: Thank you Chair Martinez. Steven Turner, 18 Advance Planning Manager; Staff is pleased to continue this discussion with the Commission 19 aboutthe development of the city's Density Housing Ordinance. It has been some time since we 20 last brought this topic to the Commission. It has been a number of years. Staffhas been focused 21 primarily on the development of the housing element as part of the Comprehensive Plan 22 amendment. The intent was to bring the Housing Density Bonus Ordinance to the Commission 23 sooner but with our continued work·on the housing elements we felt it best to bring both the 24 housing element and the density bonus ordinance on or around the same time to you and so we 25 put off work for a little while on the Density Bonus Ordinance. 26 27 We are at a pomt now, especially with our new Housing Senior Planner on board with us to 28 continue that work and we have done work over the past few months to prepare for this evening 29 and this discussion so with that I wanted to introduce again Tim Wong, our Housing Senior 30 Planner, who will lead us through the discussion this evening. That will be followed by Don 31 Larkin, our Assistant City Attorney who will go into some legal aspects of Density Bonus Law. 32 33 Mr. Tim Wong, Afford. Housing Sr. Planner: Good evening. It's a pleasure to be here. The 34 purpose of tonight's Study Session is to present and discuss the amendments to the Density 35 Bonus Law and staff is seeking feedback from the Commission regarding the amendments as 36 staff proceeds through the process of adopting these amendments into our local ordinance. 37 38 In 2004 the State passed SB 1818 which significantly amended the existing State Density Bonus 39 Law. Some of the more significant changes were the increase of higher maximum density to 40 . 35%. Previously the law had it at 20%. In addition, the new amendments provided that the 41 developer could request up to three concessions or incentives and previously it was only one 42 concession. Lastly, it requires that jurisdictions adopt the amendments into their local codes and 43 so staff is taking this through the process as we speak. 44 45 As stated, jurisdictions must grant developers concessions and incentives up to a maximum of 46 three depending on the percentage of affordable housing that the developer would propose in the 47 development. So some of the more common concessions and incentives that can be requested 48 include an increased floor area ration, increased height from the maximum height limits and 1 1 some relief from setback requirements. These are the more common but the developer can 2 request for a variety of concessions or incentives. 3 4 So as part of this Study Session staff is looking for feedback about how to consider concessions 5 and incentives when .requested. Staff has provided you two Ordinances from the City of San 6 Mateo and from the City of Santa Monica, different approaches, how they establish parameters 7 for some of these concessions. The City of Santa Monica, they consider each request on a case 8 by case basis while the City of San Mateo has created limits to their concessions and I believe 9 you received outlines or summaries of how each of those jurisdictions proceed. 10 11 Again, as part of the Study Session staff is looking for feedback about how the Commission 12 wishes to approach considering or establishing parameters to some of these concessions and so 13 that really concludes my discussion and I'd like to tum the time over to Assistant City Attorney 14 Don Larkin. 15 16 Mr. Donald Larkin, Senior Asst. City Attorney: Thanks. I thought it would be helpful to give 1 7 just a little bit of background on the State Density Bonus Law and what the parameters of the 18 legislation provide and then put some perspective on what the City can and can't do in terms of 19 implementing the Density Bonus Law and I call it Density Bonus Law because its easier to 20 remember than Government Code 65915 and SB1818. As the title of the statute implies, the 21 primary purpose of this statute is to create density bonuses for the provision of below market rate 22 housing and a density bonus refers to a bonus or additional residential density unit density, for 23 example, in a thirty unit per acre zoning project on a one acre site the developer could normally 24 develop thirty housing units. Under the Density Bonus Law if 5% of those units are rented to 25 very low income renters then they would be entitled to a 20% Density Bonus and they could 26 build 36 units. The majority of the statute is discussing the various formulas by which you get 27 bonuses in residential density. We have not seen since I've been here an application from any 28 developer who ever built up to the maximum density allowed in a multifamily zone. We don't 29 really concern ourselves with density bonuses because we don't typically have requests for those. 30 31 Where we really have issues that we need to address is in the area of incentives or concessions 32 which is a very small part of the State Density Bonus Law but one that has the bigger impact on 33 Palo Alto and the one that we are looking for feedback on. I want to talk about three questions 34 that come up in relation to concessions or incentives. First, what projects are eligible for 35 concessions and how many they can receive, the second is how are the concessions requested 36 and can they be denied and on what basis. And then the third is what specific concessions are or 37 are not allowed in the Density Bonus Law. 38 39 So the first question, what projects are eligible for concessions. The threshold question, it is not 40 necessary to receive a Density Bonus to receive concessions under the State Law . You have to 41 build a housing project that is eligible for density bonuses but you don't actually have to request 42 the density bonus. It's only necessary that the project provide the right level ofBMR units to be 43 eligible for the bonuses that are being requested. For rental projects, an applicant is entitled to 44 one incentive for each 10% of the total units that are reserved for lower income households or 45 5% that are reserved for very low income households and they are entitled to up to three 46 concessions as Tim said. 47 48 Condominium projects are eligible for. concessions only if all of the units in a project are offered 49 for sale so it's not possible to have a rental project and then sell off five units as BMR for sale 2 1 units. They all. have to be offered for sale at the same time then that project would be eligible for 2 one concession for every 10% of the total' units sold at moderate affordability level and then it's 3 up to three concessions that are required to be provided. 4 5 The second question is how are concessions requested and how can they be denied. This is an 6 area where State Law isn't as definitive as it could be but what the State Law says is that 7 applicant may submit a proposal for the specific incentives or concessions that the applicant is 8 requesting and that they may request a meeting to discuss the request with planners. Although 9 the statute says "may", my opinion is that an applicant has to actually request the specific 10 concessions in order to be considered for them. It isn't sufficient to submit a request that doesn't 11 comply with all of the zoning requirements and expect the planning staff to intuit that they are 12 requesting a concession. So even though the statute says may they have to actually request the 13 concessions as part of their application. 14 15 If the concessions are requested, they have to be granted unless the city makes a written finding 16 based on substantial evidence that either the concession is not required to provide for affordable 1 7 housing costs at the BMR levels proposed or the concession would have a specific adverse 18 impact on public health and safety. A specific adverse impact is not just that it doesn't comply 19 with zoning. It has to be a significant quantifiable direct and unavoidable impact based on 20 objective identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions. For 21 example, unifonn fire code, if it violates any of these codes, those are written definitive safety 22 standards that need to be met and a concession can be denied if a concession will result in 23 violation of one of those codes. 24 25 The third basis for denying a concession would be that it is contrary to State or Federal Law. 26 Unless Qne of these three findings is made based on substantial evidence, the concessions have to 27 be granted. If a concession is denied, the applicant can challenge the denial and if the City is 28 found to have abused its discretion in denying the concession, the City is liable for the 29 applicant's attorney's fees. 30 31 So the third question on what specific concessions are allowed or excluded under Density Bonus 32 Law. This is the area where I think the Commission can provide the most input because as Tim 33 said we are expected to adopt our own implementation ordinance and that's where we can really 34 define those parameters. We are still somewhat limited in how we can narrow them but at least 35 there is some room for us to make some strong suggestions to applicants. The legislation 36 identifies three very broad categories of concessions'. The first is a reduction of site development 37 standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or design requirements provided the 38 project complies with the applicable building codes. 39 40 They talk in very general terms about what they mean by development standards but it includes 41 things like reductions in setback, modification of square footage requirements which I think 42 should also be interpreted as FAR requirements and reduction in parking requirements are some 43 of the things legislature has identified as possible changes to development standards. 44 45 The second broad category is approval of mixed use projects. Particularly, what the s}atute says 46 is approval of mixed use zoning if commercial, office, industrial or other land uses will reduce 47 the cost of the housing development and if the other land uses are compatible with the housing 48 project then existing plan development in the area. 49 3 1 And then the third and very broad category is other regulatory incentives or concessions 2 proposed by the developer or the city which result in identifiable, financially sufficient and 3 actual cost reductions. That's as much guidance as the legislature has given us on what 4 concessions can be granted. They are very broad, essentially absent any authority and a 5 developer can ask for just about anything they want but we think that providing some better 6 guidance through the Ordinance would help to better shape what kinds of concessions we see 7 and we think that there are ways to put some basic, at lease presumptive limits on what 8 applicants can request as long as we leave open the option of applicant's giving evidence that 9 whatever else they are seeking is absolutely necessary so with that I will tum it back to the 10 Commission for questions and discussions. 11 12 Chair Martinez: Okay, I think I was supposed to open the Public Hearing so I'll do that. 13 Commissioners, do you want to do a round of questions before we go to the public. Okay, 14 Commissioner Lippert you'll have five minutes. 15 16 Commissioner Lippert: Are we permitted to, since this works with our housing element and the 17 most significant part of our housing element is low, very low, and moderate income housing, is it 18 possible to limit the language of SB or the Housing Bonus Density Law to those sites that we've 19 identified as housing sites alone? 20 21 Mr. Larkin: No, the statute requires us to allow the concessions for any project that proposes to 22 build below market rate housing so as long as they meet the requisite numbers of BMR units we 23 have to grant them concessions. 24 25 Commissioner Lippert: So if someone came along and they wanted to build it in the Rl zone, or 26 they wanted to locate it over by Bayshore freeway, we would have to permit that? 27 28 Mr. Larkin: We still don't have to allow multifamily in an Rl zone so it really only applies to 29 multifamily zones that allow it. 30 31 Commissioner Lippert: But over by Bayshore and that area, if there were housing sites over in 32 the east area and away from transit, we would have to permit that. 33 34 Mr. Larkin: We would still have to permit it even if it isn't in an ideal location as long as its 35 somewhere housing is permitted. 36 37 Commissioner Lippert: Can you clarify for me, when we're talking about examples here, it may 38 be more Mr. Wong's background, an increased floor area, increased height and relief for 39 setbacks, do multiple setbacks count as one concession or is one concession per setback? 40 41 Mr. Larkin: I think there is some room for us to define that better. Right now, it's vague. I 42 think there is some room for us to say in our ordinance that a relief for a side setback or relief 43 from a front setback, rear setback is a concession and the Council and the Commission of the 44 Council still have some discretion to allow more than the required concessions for projects where 45 the Commission or Council think its appropriate so for example, in a 100% affordable housing 46 project there is still some discretion to say, we think it a concession but we are going to give you 47 more than the maximum three concessions that we are required to. 48 4 1 Mr. Curtis Williams. Planning Director: Board Member Lippert, an example of that would be the 2 801 Alma Project. That is 100% affordable housing project. They requested setback 3 encroachments on all sites and I believe they treated that as one concession. I think since the fact 4 since it was 100% housing unit they were more apt to accept those three setback encroachments 5 as one concession. 6 7 Mr. Wong: The City of Santa Monica in theirs they do specifically state a 15% reduction on one 8 side yard' setback so. . . . 9 10 CommissionerLippert:When it comes to increased height, we do have certain limitations in 11 terms of when properties are located within the proximity of the low density housing. Examples 12 are R1 and R2. We cap that and we really don't allow people to come close to the maximum 13 height limit. Would we be able to then allow for an increase in height for those properties that 14 are near R1 or R2? 15 16 Mr. Williams: I assume what you're talking about is that if you were in 150 feet then you would 17 have to be 35 feet instead of 40 or 50 feet or that kind oft~ing? So yes, we would have to allow 18 for something as far as if they requested a height variance although, did you mention those two 19 findings? 20 21 Mr. Larkin: I did mention the three findings. 22 23 Mr. Williams: So unless one of the findings could be made... The issue here is now the extent 24 of that. Would they be allowed to go from 35 feet to 37 feet or from 35 feet to 60 feet? That's 25 sort of the question and that's what I think this ordinance is best tailored to try to address is the 26 extent of the deviations that might be allowed and the circumstances and sort of relationship on a 27 particular project of how much affordable housing is being provided relative to the overall 28 project vis-a.-vis the request that's being made. 29 30 Commissioner Lippert: If I might just finish up on this to clarify the question I asked with regard 31 to the height. Can we make a hard andfast rule that if we don't think 35 feet is appropriate 32 within 150 feet of a low density housing development, can we actually say no? 33 34 Mr. Larkin: I don't think we can create a hard and fast rule. I think we can create limits on how 35 much a concession we would allow but a hard and fast rule is we are not going to grant a 36 concession for height that is within 150 feet ofR1 is not something we can do. 37 38 Commissioner Keller: So one of the things that makes this interesting for the City of Palo Alto is 39 that we have an inclusionary zoning ordinance. So the first question is, is the city attempting or 40 are their prospects for attempting to modify the legislation so that inclusionary BMR housing 41 exempt from concessions? In other words, you only get concessions for that which exceeds the 42 inclusionary requirements. 43 44 Mr. Larkin: I think the current statute does not allow us to exempt the required units so that 45 means anybody that builds a for sale project in Palo Alto and is providing units on site instead of 46 in lieu fees is automatically entitled to one concession. I am not aware of any efforts to amend 47 the state legislation. 48 5 1 Commissioner Keller: So we might consider that but what is interesting to me is that we have 2 carefully crafted our zoning ordinance in mind of the inclusionary zoning. So it seems to me that 3 there is in some sense essentially shredding of our zoning ordinance by asking additional 4 concessions so I'm wondering if we can do institutional haircuts. For example, if we can cross 5 the board for multifamily housing and say that FAR is reduced by 20% and you can get it back 6 as a concession to increase FAR by 20% or whatever the number is, 25% would get you back to 7 where you were. Is that possible? 8 9 Mr. Larkin: Not through our Density Bonus Ordinance but I suppose that would be possible 10 through regular zoning ordinance change. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: Could we do a packet of changes that would reduce our density by 20% 13 on one hand and simultaneously implement a Density Bonus Law that allows a concession of 14 25% bringing you back to where you were? 15 16 Mr. Larkin: I don't think there is a legal prohibition to doing something like that. It might be 17 subject to challenge. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: I'm wondering if there could be a requirement that people in the zoning 20 ordinance build to 80% of the allowed density of the standard density so if you're in RM40 you 21 have to build to 32 units, if you are an RM30 you have to build to 24 units and it could be a 22 concession to not build to that number. 23 24 Mr. Williams: There is a policy or has been a policy in the current Comprehensive Plan that we 25 establish minimum densities for multifamily dwellings and we tried that in the zoning ordinance 26 update. It didn't go over too well. In any event, I'm not aware that there is any legal reason we 27 can't do that and some cities have done that to establish minimum as well as maximum densities 28 for residential. 29 30 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. My last question has to do with the wording of the potential 31 reasons for denying the concessions and it appears to me its kind of in the revised version is kind 32 of blurry but it looks like its on DIA and it says the concession or incentive is not required to 33 provide for affordable housing costs as defined in etc. or for rents and amounts. So I'm saying, 34 how can we judge whether this is met or not and I'm wondering whether we can require that pro 35 formas be submitted by the applicant and I'm not sure whether the Commission or the Council 36 should review those or whether staff should review those but its impossible to judge that without 37 having pro formas both with or without the concessions. 38 39 Mr. Larkin: I would also point out that there seems to be a discrepancy in the statute in order to 40 request the concessions the concession only needs to bring the cost down but this would seem to 41 imply that it actually has to make the project feasible so there is a discrepancy in the statute and I 42 don't think there's a case that the court has analyzed so we don't have a lot of guidance on that 43 but to answer the specific question, if you look at what the City of Santa Monica has done they 44 sent out a list of specific concessions and they have pulled out applicants if they want to deviate 45 from the list of acceptable concessions then they are going to have to provide pro formas. The 46 pro formas are reviewed not by the Planning Commission or the Council but an expert that is 47 hired at the expense of the applicant who can provide an expert opinion on whether the 48 concession is necessary and whoever this ends up being applied. 49 6 1 Commissioner Keller: May I just clarify the answer to the question? So what I'm wondering is 2 is it possible to blanket require that whenever concessions are requested that a pro forma has to 3 be provided. Is that legal? 4 5 Mr. Larkin: I'm not 100% sure because it's not something that has ever been tested but it is 6 something that can be explored if that's where the Commission wants to go. 7 8 Commissioner Garber: If I'm understanding what Santa Monica is doing, they have created 9 groups of essentially pro forma concessions based on the types· of zones, right? Can you also 10 create geographic areas that are not necessarily defined by zones for those concessions to occur 11 within? 12 13 Mr. Williams: I'm a little confused because I thinkwe have to grant the concessions regardless 14 of where they are so I don't think we can say in one specific-area you can have concessions and 15 then in the rest of the city you can't. I'm sure I'm misunderstanding probably. 16 1 7 Commissioner Garber: I may not be understanding my question. There is probably not enough 18 information here for me to understand this entirely but what it seems to suggest here is that, 19 using Santa Monica as the example, that there is some residential zone. Let's call it R30 or 20 something, that they have created concessions just for that zone. Is that what I'm understanding 21 or does it affect any zone that allows for multifamily housing to occur in it? 22 23 Mr. Larkin: Ifwe're going to establish allowable concessions that are allowable as a matter of 24 standard practice if you are in RM30 and you want a height exception then you are entitled to a 25 10% increase, but RM40 its 15%, if that's what you mean. 26 27 Commissioner Garber: Let me try this a different way. Can a city have both prescriptive 28 concessions as well as one of the exceptions depending on where the project is in the city? 29 30 Mr. Larkin: Yes. I think the answer would be yes. I think we could have prescriptive 31 concessions plus one up concessions for ... the city always has the ability to grant more what it 32 sets as the floor for projects where the concession is something the city finds particularly 33 beneficial. 34 35 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 36 37 Commissioner Tanaka: Sometimes developers pay in lieu fees instead of actually building the 38 BMR units so one question is if the developer wanted to get a concession could it be in lieu fees? 39 40 Mr. Larkin: No, they have to either provide units on site or purchase land to build the BMR 41 units so they don't have to build the units on site in their project but if they don't they actually 42 have to build the units somewhere else. They can't just pay in lieu fees to the city and the city 43 acquire the land. 44 45 Commissioner Tanaka: Are these concessions ever transferable so that people can transfer them 46 between projects? 47 48 Mr. Larkin: No they have to be provided on the project. 49 7 1 Vice Chair Fineberg: I got the buzzer and forgot my mic. I'm trying to sort out the idea of 2 whether there is legal or other reasons that going the Santa Monica versus the San Mateo route 3 might be more advantageous. One question I would like to start with is do we set precedent 4 when we make a decision, let's say there is a project that is near and dear to everyone's hearts 5 and we love it and we decide we are going to consider four faces, one setback and for whatever 6 . reasons we are very generous with how we consider the granting of concessions. The next 7 project comes along for whatever reasons and it doesn't have that political support. It doesn't 8 have the huge benefits to the pUblic. 9 10 Once we 'veset a precedent that four sides is one setback, can the next project we then say, nope, 11 sorry one setback is one side or one unit? 12 13 Mr. Larkin: I think the recommendation would be to set the parameters that you want in order to 14 have a deviation from what is acceptable if, specifically on setbacks, I think the recommendation 15 I would make is that the Commission and the Council wanted to allow a greater flexibility for 16 100% affordable projects just to put in the Ordinance. We can do more for 100% affordable but 17 for standard projects these are the parameters and then that way, if you're setting a precedent it's 18 a precedent that I don't necessarily think it will set a precedent but it certainly opens the door to 19 that argument being made so I think the way to close that door is to decide when you want to be 20 able to deviate from the standard practice. 21 22 Vice Chair Fineberg: That sounds like a great solution to that kind of scenario. The reason I'm 23 concerned about it is if we were to go the San Mateo route where we were just general it seems 24 to me the developers are going to want to maximize their return on investment and build the 25 project that will yield them the highest income and that would mean a greater number of 26 concessions that were larger so if we know that's what we're facing, are we in a strategic 27 negotiation position that is made better by having a lower baseline and then let's say our low 28 baseline says we must give X, could we then, this is the flip side of my previous question, could 29 we then on a project by project basis decide we want to grant more or would that become 30 arbitrary and capricious and then we are in trouble again? 31 32 'Mr. Larkin: The only real guidance we have is some of the litigation that came out of the City of 33 Berkeley in which essentially that's what the City of Berkeley said, that is we like this project 34 that is being proposed. It gives a lot more BMR housing than would be required even for 35 concessions and we want to give them more. The courts have said that's okay and they actually 36 had a basis for it. I don't remember what the number was but it was substantially more than the 37 BMR housing they needed even for the concessions they were seeking. So that's the only real 38 precedent that we have on that issue but I think where the question is headed is an appropriate 39 thing to look at for the ordinances. Do we want to create that type of flexibility? 40 41 Vice Chair Fineberg: I'm trying to think it through of which way gives us the control and the 42 flexibility that we want and then the last thing is in the Santa Monica case it talks about when 43 they're building into commercial zones that one of the concessions is eliminating the restriction 44 on the number of stories that can be constructed within the allowable height limit of the 45 commercial or industrial zoning district so it sounds to me that they're granting that as a 46 concession but yet maintaining the height limit in that district and making an exaggerated 47 example, sure they can give someone the right to build thirteen stories in a thirty foot building. 48 They physically won't be able to do it but they've maintained that height limit. So why can they 49 maintain a height limit and we can't? 8 1 2 Mr. Larkin: I'm not suggesting that we couldn't maintain a height limit. I think what we can't 3 do is give a blanket. We are not going to grant conces~ions·for height. We are going to need 4 another way to limit those concessions and it may be something like an absolute height limit with 5 some flexibility and the density bonus is only going to be to allow one extra floor of housing or 6 something like that but it sort of, because this question has come up before. What happens if 7 someone want to put 150 story skyscraper in downtown .Palo Alto and the top 40 stories will be 8 BMR do we have to let them do it and the answer is no. 9 10 Vic e Chair Fineberg: I don't think we have a fire truck that goes that high so it's an issue of 11 public safety. 12 13 Chair Martinez: Since it's my tum I can have a follow up question. Have you looked at other 14 cities regarding this height issue, Tim? 15 16 Mr. Wong: I spoke to the City of San Mateo and actually in their ordinance they don't list height 17 as creating because there was a voter initiative to limit height in the city and speaking to the 18 Senior Planner there so they can't go beyond that but in the other ordinances they do allow for 19 relief from height, well not relief from heights that are maximums but they do allow them to go 20 beyon~. 21 22 Chair Martinez: I've looked at San Francisco and they have an absolute, depending on the 23 geographical area, limit on height. In the area I'm working in you can 't go higher than 68 feet 24 and I said, but we're doing low income housing and they repeated that. You can't go higher than 25 68 feet so I think it is possible, if that's important to our community as it has been in the past, to 26 make that distinction and say this isn't a concession. However;it seems to me that our Comp 27 Plan is taking a pretty big hit, the housing element in terms of coming up with these concessions 28 and related to that we are already talking about, I'll call it concessions for building housing and 29 transit areas there at Cal Avenue. 30 31 So would that not be a concession if we already have it as an acceptable land use that someone 32 can go build higher than 50 feet and therefore they can have three concessions plus the higher or 33 do we have to revise our Comp Plan to clarify that? 34 35 Mr. Larkin: Well, I think Curtis will follow up on what I'm about to say but in the Density 36 Bonus Law.itselfit says we are not required to do a Comp Plan amendment even if what is being 37 requested is the concession to violate the Comp Plan but we don't have to worry about Comp 38 Plan consistency for purposes of the concessions being requested so if its height, even though our 39 Comp Plan says different, we can't apply that Comp Plan policy but I'll look at San Francisco 40 and see on what basis they were able to set an absolute maximum. It could be that there is a 41 safety standard as well that sets that maximum. 42 43 Chair Martinez: Curtis did you have something you wanted to say? 44 45 Mr. Williams: No I don't have anything else to add. 46 47 Chair Martinez: Is it possible to look at other things as concessions? For example, expediting 48 the permitting process? 49 9 1 Mr. Larkin:Y ou know that's a good question. I think that is something that could be requested 2 by an applicant is an expedited process. I don't know that that's something you necessarily have 3 the capability of granting in this case because the statute is so broad that it is pretty much 4 anything that saves the applicant money and is allowed but I think if we were to all of a sudden 5 have lots of applicants coming and saying we all want expedited processing we would have a 6 difficult time meeting those concessions. 7 8 Chair Martinez: Okay, what about, and I think I know the answer is no but I'm going to ask it 9 anyway. What about sort of livability and wellness as sort of items that we don't want to make 10 concessions on? For example, I know that Councilmember Holman is big on private open space 11 for affordable housing yet I think on 801 Alma that was granted as a concession to eliminate it so 12 can we actually, I mean that's an important sort of livability thing for families that a space, can 13 we actually take things like that off the table or even the daylight plane as not being acceptable 14 concessions? 15 16 Mr. Larkin: I think that we can't typically when you look at these and what is meant by a health 17 and safety welfare, you look at things like livability, open space, day light plane and what the 18 Density Bonus Law says is that those types of health, safety and welfare considerations are not 19 what we would consider. We can only consider written defined objective safety standards. 20 However, I think that we can rebut the presumption that a reduction in those things actually 21 contributes to the financial viability of the project and that would be our opportunity to counter 22· those things. We can also reduce the impact of those things by limiting the amount of 23 concessions we are going to grant on a pro forma basis. 24 25 Chair Martinez: Okay, iliank you. I think I'm going to stop for now. Can we go to members of 26 the public that want to speak? 27 28 Vice Chair Fineberg: Three minutes for each speaker. The first speaker is Mr. Robert Moss to 29 be followed by Herb Borock. 30 31 Mr. Robert Moss: Thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. The questions you ask and 32 comments you make are very pertinent. I think you hit on a lot of problems and points that this 33 whole thing brings up and let me remind you of something Commissioner Keller said. For 35 34 years, Palo Alto has required BMR units in projects over a certain size. Originally it was 20 35 units, now it is down to 5. Originally it was 40%, now it is 15%. So it is impossible for 36 somebody to come in with a straight face and say we need a concession in order to provide BMR 37 units. They'll lie to you about it but it has not been proven. Since the requirement has been put 38 in, there have been over 6,100 homes built in Palo Alto and about 800 BMR units and nobody 39 got a single concession so and then the thing that's worse about this is they get a concession for 40 only 10% or building a third fewer BMR units than we require in a court ordinance so t think its 41 perfectly valid to put in limits on the types of concessions you want to allow. 42 43 If you allow anyone to come in with whatever they want, you can end up basically with no 44 zoning because somebody can come in and put in a 50 or 60 or 80 foot condo building in the 45 middle of an R1 zone and you've lost all rational zoning so let me make a few suggestions on 46 how you can try to get some rationality to this. 47 48 Someone comes in with 10% BMR units and they want a concession. The maximum concession 49 they can get in FAR is an additional 10%. If they come in with 200/0 BMR units the maximum 10 1 FAR increase they can get·is 20 to 250/0 so everybody knows up front what's allowed. The 2 maximum height increase let's say is five feet or ten feet and you can adjust that according to the 3 zone and proximity for example to residential. 4 5 Setbacks. Each setback is a single concession so if a guy wants a side yard setback, that's his 6 concession. He wants a front yard concession, two concessions, side and front. You can always 7 relax it if you feel wonderful about the project but put on paper limits that everyone can stand 8 going in and if they say I'm going to sue you because I can't build BMR units without all of 9 these concessions then you can point to the hundreds of units being built and the 15% 10 requirement we've had over 35 years and take them into court and say, you're lying. How come 11 everybody else can build and everybody else can give us BMR units and they even got a 12 concession and you can't do it? You must be an awfully incompetent developer. 13 14 Vice Chair Fineberg: Thank you Herb Borock. 15 16 Mt.Herb Borock: Thank you and good evening Commissioners. I believe staff, Commission 1 7 and applicant should stop referring to SB 1818 which has since been superseded by other 18 legisiation. I think it is much more direct if you are going to refer to something to refer to the 19 Government Code Section 65915 or some generic words with State Density Bonus Law. 20 21 One of the reasons to stop referring to a former bill in the legislature is that the current version of 22 the law was completely restated and the last enactment and it resolved some of the ambiguities in 23 the law and made some changes based on the experience and decisions of the courts. For an 24 example, the last amendments and changes to the law made it unambiguous that in terms of 25 setbacks, each setback is a concession. They did that by inserting an indefinite Article A 26 setback. 27 28 Another thing is that we already have a zone district, overlay zone district, the pedestrian transit 29 overlay oriented district which has the kinds of formulas that the previQus speaker indicated. 30 That is for BMR units, affordable units in addition to what we already require as BMR units you 31 can get additional height or additional floor area so that kind of formula already exists in the 32 code. 33 34 One other thing that you need to understand is that in terms of the rental units because of state 35 law on vacancy control, that we canriot in our BMR program require the rental units but Density 36 Bonus Law you can get concessions for rental units and the way we implement that we can use 37 the BMR program so essentially we are using that same formula but it is not our BMR program 38 is doing it its because that's what we use to determine the affordability of rental units when they 39 are requested for concessions. 40 41 Finally, in terms of what's required for For Sale units that are affordable units, Government 42 Code 65915 refers to an equity sharing arrangement but it says if there is some other local law 43 that might conflict with it then that overrides it. It is unclear to me whether our BMR legislation 44 for For Sale units which the staff is determined to use for implementing 65915 is the proper thing 45 to do. I can read that law to say we are required to use the language that's in 65915 which is an 46 equity sharing arrangement and that is just the first resident of the unit gets, that affordable unit 47 and after that when the unit is sold the city gets a certain amount of money in equity sharing to 48 use for affordable programs. Thank you. 49 11 1 Chair Martinez: Thank you. We are doing remarkably well on time so Commissioners if there is 2 additional questions before comments go ahead. 3 4 Commissioner Lippert: I've got a line of questioning with regard to our I guess PC process 5 would the PC process allow for in addition the application of the Bonus Density Law so an 6 applicant could come in and request a PC and apply. 7 8 Mr. Williams: Don, correct me if I am wrong but yes. That is actually happening on one project 9 we're reviewing right now but the application of it is, a couple things about the PC. One is the 10 PC itself allows deviation from zoning ordinance criteria but there are two or three standards that 11 still apply even with a PC of 50 foot height being one, daylight plane from residential properties 12 being another, etc. So those standards are ones that could be considered for concessions under 13 the PC zone~ 14 15 On the other hand, a PC is entirely discretionary forthe city so if you think that is excessive even 16 if it were something that were allowed under our ordinance for concessions you could deny the 1 7 PC or require modification to it until it was an acceptable project so PC has that different aspect 18 to it th~t allows forthat level of discretion regardless of how many concessions they otherwise 19 can have so you have maximum discretion. 20 21 Commissioner Lippert: Similarly the PTOD process we have ... 22 23 Mr. Williams: Same thing, yes. In fact there was a PTOD granted, Mr. Hohbach's on Birch that 24 . had one concession associated with it. It was a PTOD and there was one concession for the 25 amount of office space. 26 27 Commissioner Lippert: The last question associated with.this is TDRs. In a zone where we 28 don't necessarily allow for TDRs, for instance the Alma, what is 355 Alma? We don't allow 29 application ofTDRs but it could in fact be one of the concessions that might be permitted is the 30 application ofTDRs in order to get that to reduce parking because it's ... 31 32 Mr. Larkin: I suppose it could. State law is broad enough that it could allow that. It's 33 something our TDR ordinance does not allow so we would have to really look at how that would 34 be applied but given the breadth and vagueness of the state law I suppose that's a possibility. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: So firstly,just to clarify the answer to Commissioner Lippert's question, 37 the city has the authority to deny a PC or a PTOD application on the basis that it doesn't like the 38 concessions and simply choose to say that you have to tum in with concessions we like or not at 39 all if we wish to. 40 41 Mr. Williams: I don't think its so much that you don't like the concessions, its that you find the 42 project meets the findings that are necessary for a PC or PTOD so its essentially finding that the 43 rezoning or both the rezoning are appropriate for health, safety and welfare reasons and they are 44 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and those types of things so you just have to find that 45 one of those findings does not apply or the public benefits aren't adequate for PC or whatever 46 and you can deny it. It wouldn't be specific to saying you don't like the concessions" I don't 47 think. I think that's more defensive. 48 12 1 Mr. Larkin: I think there is broader discretion on a PC zone because you are looking at the 2 project as a whole, is the benefit of the project as a whole enough to justify whatever deviation 3 from standard zoning that's being asked for so you're saying you don't think the benefit of the 4 project justifies going over the height limit and all these other deviations from zoning so we 5 don't want to do that. There is broader discussion on the PC zone than PTOD but otherwise I 6 agree with Curtis. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: So it's fair to assume from that that we can take into account concessions 9 requested in our PTOD analysis or in our PC analysis. Is that right? 10 11 Mr. Larkin: Very clearly on the PC lUlalysis. I think on the PTOD I think you can still make the 12 PTOD findings as Curtis described. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: So let me ask a different question which is to what extent, if we put limits 15 on as on Santa Monica, on our concessions, to what extent do the concessions have to be usable 16 or useful? For example, can we say a height concession can be one foot, that's a concession and 1 7 an FAR concession can be 1 % and each additional percent is an additional concession. Is that 18 legal or where is the boundary on that? 19 20 Mr. Larkin: There has to be a relationship between the concession and the limit on the 21 concession and the affordable housing being required so a one foot variation on height is not 22 going to add any additional affordable housing and I think that would be inappropriate but I think 23 for a 2% FAR increase is not going to add another unit of housing so I think there has to be some 24 rational relationship between the concession that is being granted and the affordable housing that 25 is being provided. 26 27 Commissioner Keller: If I may follow up on that, can we have a formula that says for every 28 additional BMR unit that you can get or a certain percentage or any additional BMR unit over 29 the maximum that you could have if it were fully developed? Are there formulas like that we are 30 going to have? 31 32 Mr. Larkin: I think it would be legal. It is more complicated than what the two cities we have 33 provided examples do but there is certainly nothing ... In fact the Berkeley case would at least 34 imply that that is something that would be allowable. We've got to give the concession but 35 based on the amount of affordable housing we are going to give a different amount of 36 concession. 37 38 Mr. Wong: Commissioner Martinez if I could just weigh in, in answer to Commissioner 39 Keller's, staff did not provide but the City of LA does offer a concession based on 40 proportionality in regards to height, if they offer 10% more than what is required its either a 41 height proportionality or FAR so it has been done in that regards. 42 43 Commissioner Garber: I take it that the concessions that San Mateo and Santa Monica and Los 44 Angeles for that matter were made, were they made as a result of the recent legislation so they 45 were relatively recent ordinance changes for those cities? 46 47 Mr. Wong: I am unaware. i didn't see if they were actually concessions requested but ... 48 13 1 Mr. Williams: You mean the changes in the ordinance, you see here, they were done in response 2 to theSB 1818 when it was adopted. 3 4 Commissioner Garber: I was just curious to find out if one approach or the other doing these as 5 one thing versuS creating some type of prescriptive concessions has been more effective for 6 creating additional BMRs in those particular towns. Is there any knowledge or data on that? 7 8 Mr. Williams: There isn't that we're aware of and it is pretty short lived as far as experience to 9 date with it. It came into effect at a time when the residential market was ... So there hasn't been lOan awful lot done under it. 11 12 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 13 14 Commissioner Tanaka: A couple of quick questions. The first one is, do we knowhow many 15 projects we are actually, that come in actually and would be affected by this? Do you have any 16 projection because I'm trying to figure out a case by case basis versus what Santa Monica is 17 doing? Are we talking five cases a year, ten a year? I know it's hard to say. 18 19 Mr. Williams: It is. It depends on development activity. Theoretically any project with 20 residential on it can make some kind of a request but we certainly see other residential projects 21. that don't have requests on them so it's hard to judge. 22 23 Commissioner Keller: I think its great that you gave us San Mateo but do we know what our 24 nearby neighbors are doing, Sunnyvale, Menlo Park, those surrounding us? 25 26 Mr. Wong: I did not do a review of those ordinances but staffwould be happy to review them. 27 28 Mr. Larkin: We haven't looked at it within the last six months to a year. When we did look at it 29 there were very few cities that had adopted implementation ordinances and we can certainly 30 update our research and we can do that further. 31 32 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, thank you. 33 34 Vice Chair Fineberg: I'm looking at the Santa Monica ordinance and on page 9, in reference to 35 Commissioner Keller's earlier comment, it says at the bottom under Section 1, for each 1 % 36 increase in a percentage of restricted very low income affordable housing, a housing unit 37 development will receive an additional 2 Y2% Density Bonus and it goes on that the less 38 affordable it is the less the density bonus so its actually a tiered gradient so doesn't that counter 39 what you said before? We couldn't give you know, I know it might be a one to one or one to 40 two or one to three but can't we have gradients for the bonuses? 41 42 Mr. Larkin: If I said it I didn't mean to imply that we couldn't have gradients. When we're 43 talking about density bonuses they are talking about the units breaker density and that's in the 44 State Law, actually copied right out of the State Law but I think we couldn't say, we have to give 45 the concessions for 10, 20, 30% or 5, 10, 15 depending on the level but I think it was 46 Commissioner Keller who asked if we could say for additional units we give additional 47 concession amount of concession, I think that's appropriate. 48 14 I I I / I 1 Vice Chair Fineberg: Thank you. Is there any way that our language can include some 2 concessions or language in the concessions that they get the concession for proportionality over 3 what is currently required in the BMR program? I'll let that be answered in a moment but I 4 guess what I'm struggling with is, we as a city have done what we're supposed to to try to 5 remove the impediments to build affordable housing, to try and zone, to try and remove all the 6 blockages. We have allowed extra density, extra height in areas where the best sites are for that 7 affordable housing so we've done that and now with those enhanced conditions in place, weare 8 also now being required to legislate that we are going to kind of be forced to have a double 9 dipping that then with concessions you get even more and so that either, just thinking, what 10 would the theoretical response to that be? Would you either go back and undo the progress 11 we've made as a city and that just seems not.an intelligent way to plan or you somehow 12 incorporate into this a recognition that we've already built those bonuses? 13 14 Mr. Williams: If I could just respond to that because I think I would take a little exception to 15 characterizing it that way and I would ask what we have done to provide concessions for 16 affordable housing? We have certain·development standards and then we require people, 17 developers, to provide a certain percentage of that as affordable units and that is a disincentive to 18 building more housing because its housing they are not going to make as much profit on. We 19 don't distinguish our development standards aren't any different for affordable housing projects 20 than they are for market rate housing projects so I don't think we, I think it would be a hard case 21 to make that we've already provided incentives for affordable housing. We've provided a 22 requirement for affordable housing and I think what the State Law does and I maybe should have 23 started with this in this presentation, but the intent of the State Law is to recognize that when 24 affordable housing is provided that there be a recognition of that and that there be concessions 25. allowed that would help reduce the cost of that housing, not necessarily demonstrate that it is 26 necessary to make the housing work but to reduce the cost of the housing and make it some more 27 incentive for someone to do affordable housing. . \ 28 29 I don't think that's in any way, shape or form intended to be unlimited so it makes a lot of sense 30 to me that there should be some relationship proportionality, etc. between what's being offered 31 and what's not but it is frankly a little disturbing when we start to hear or when we start talking 32 about ratcheting back densities to allow them to go back up with affordable projects or amounts 33 of concessions that are meaningless. It seems like we would be pretty subject to litigation as far 34 as that being sort of thwarting the intent of the law and I would hope that from planner's ·35 standpoint, the City of Palo Alto has a good record in trying to promote affordable housing if it is 36 requiring it in some cases but also we've helped fund a lot of affordable houses. We've put our 37 money where our mouth is so we've been very supportive of affordable housing and I would 38 hope we would continue that by recognizing that this law is intended to reduce to some extent 39 the cost of housing so affordable housing, or more affordable housing could be built but again, 40 within reason so we aren't looking at wild scenarios of misusing Density Bonus Law to get 41 ridiculous concessions that don't really bear any relationship to the amount of housing being 42 provided. 43 44 Mr. Larkin: Something to keep in mind because we didn't say it, when you're looking at 45 comparing Santa Monica I think that's one of the cities that is closest to Palo Alto in terms.ofits 46 affordable housing programs and they have a very aggressive, actually more aggressive than Palo 47 Alto' sincIusionary zoning residence and so keeping in mind that they are in the same position 48 we are in terms of they've got BMR requirements that are very substantial and still provide the 49 concessions, I think we can provide additional incentives for developers to go above and beyond 15 1 what we're requiring in our inclusionary zoning ordinances and to the extent we can incentivize 2 providing even more than what we require, I think that's a fine objective.' I think it's difficult to 3 say we are not going to provide the concessions because we already require the housing anyway. 4 5 Chair Martinez: Well, I like this attitude that the Planning Director expressed that you know, it 6 real.1y is the intention both at the State Law and the city to be more aggressive in providing BMR 7 units. I support that. What I see and what we've done though is really very modest in terms of 8 concessions that have been asked for and they look more like concessions of the order of 9 magnitude to be able, more sort of land development concessions. In other words, we need a 10 little more space here and that setback and we are encroaching on the daylight plane a bit more. 11 Largely they don't look like an attempt to overbuild on the site and maybe we've been fortunate 12 heretofore in that regard but you know I see what we're attempting to do here. It's really more to 13 get ourselves in compliance and I think what Bob Moss said earlier, we are doing a pretty good 14 job of building BMR units in the city and accommodating them. I guess there is always room for 15 improvement but I think I would like to just see the kind of incentives that sort of work with our 16 Comp Plan~ work with our zoning ordinances and really sort of accommodate the sort of modest 17 things that we look towards. I don't know whether that's going to satisfy the law or not but it 18 sure is consistent with what we've been doing and not at all contrary to sort of what the State 19 Law is trying to do. 20 21 With that~ let's, don't you want to fold in our comments at this point? Comments and questions 22 together and we'll start with Commissioner Lippert. 23 24 Commissioner Lippert: Well I may not get to make any comments. These are pretty substantive 25 these questions. SB375 which has to do with transit and the nexus of having housing and 26 relieving CEQA review from cascading relief of CEQA from projects that are located near 27 housing and particularly part of that has to do with providing bonus affordable below market rate 28 housing units in those buildings. Is that going to create a problem with regard to this because 29 here we are~ we're moving or liberalizing the development regulations and at the same time if 30 those are located near housing and they are below market rate units and they make all of the 31 cascading findings for sustainability, the 10% affordable housing units and then they get their 32 ,concessions on top of that, are we creating a real complex can of worms here? 33 34 Mr. Williams: I think SB375 and a lesson until the state amends it to put some real incentives in 35 ,for CEQA isn't really going to have ... the biggest effect of SB375 is its going to push to have 36 cities like Palo Alto have housing and more affordable housing but at this point in time doesn't 37 provide the kind of CEQA relief that is getting to a point where we are avoiding addressing the 38 impacts because they are exempt from CEQA review. Exemption now have to meet such 39 stringent limitations that they hardly ever apply and they have to, in order to have them apply in 40 the future, would have to have a compliant plan associated with the sustainable community 41 strategy that comes out and that is going to be a higher density that I don't know if the City of 42 Palo Alto is going to be on that page or not and it is going to be in certain areas and that will be 43 part of our Comp Plan in numbers and the housing element will be addressed as a whole. The 44 environmental impacts and the whole housing element or of the whole Comp Plan in that 45 framework which also does help subsequently with an individual project under CEQA. It will 46 help with that but it will be addressed at one level or another, it will just be at a high area level 47 instead of one specific level. 48 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Lippert: I didn't think I'd get to comment this time around. One more question then I'll close and make my comments next round. Do we have the ability to adopt something similar to the PC process or PTOD process as far as review and application of the housing Bonus Density Law where an applicant would come forward and say its my intent to build more below -market rate housing and to meet the requirements of the Housing Bonus Density Law and so I'm going to be asking for a variety of concessions and so it would be a discretionary review process and would come before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission would vet whether those were appropriate relief and appropriate standards to the liberalization of the development regulations and then it would move forward to the Architectural Review Board for their review and then come back to us with our final recommendation to the City Council. Mr.Larkin: It's possible to create some sort of review. You wouldn't want that to be the routine review. I think what Santa Monica has done is sort of a hybrid where if you meet the criteria or apply the concessions in the way they've spelled out in their ordinance then you're entitled to the concession. The granting of concessions as a general rule is not a discretionary act that is ministerial unless written findings could be made based on substantial evidence which is a higher test based on the normal findings test that Commission is required to make so on a routine basis having a hearing and making those findings is going to be a really difficult thing to accomplish but the way the Santa Monica ordinance accomplishes that is that we understand these things are normal. We get it. They are ministerial, we are going to apply them but if you want something outside the norm then we are going to justify it and we're going to look at it and if we can make those findings to deny it then we are going to take it to our Commission and they're going to make those findings and deny the concession. Commissioner Lippert: To a lesser degree can it be something that is subject to a Director's Hearing and then the Architectural Review Board? Mr. Larkin: It could be. The statute requires the findings be made in writing and they be based on substantial evidence. It doesn't define who has to make those findings so it's something that . . can be defined in the ordinance. Commissioner Lippert: Is there an appeal process that could be associated with this also? Mr. Larkin: That is a possibility. If we were going to have a Director's Hearing process I would recommend adopting something that would allow an appeal after the final decision. Commissioner Lippert: I'm done with my questions. I told you they were pretty weighty. Commissioner Keller: The first thing is considering the nature of what we're talking about I prefer the style of the Santa Monica ordinance over the style of the San Mateo ordinance. Secondly, I disagree with the concept that we should give, since we require at least 10% ofBMR units anyway, I disagree with the idea that we should give one concession for free even though State Law requires it but essentially it means that they have one joker if you will in their cards and they have to figure out one way of adjusting our zoning ordinance. So I would actually be in favor of an institutional haircut by reducing FAR by 20% and having a concession that you can 17 1 increase it by 20% which I think most developers would essentially use up that concession and I 2 think that that basically gets us to the status quo. 3 4 I believe that what we should incent is extra good behavior, not the behavior I think the people 5 are already doing~ So from my point of view it makes us have formulas so if you ask for a 6 concession that concession is formula based. The formula base should be based on two factors .. 7 One is the percentage of increase in BMR housing like Santa Monica has and the state ordinance 8 has different weightings depending ori what kind of housing so very low versus low versus 9 moderate have different weightings and I think that makes sense. 10 11 Secondly, whatever percentage you get should be multiplied by the percentage of the project 12 that's housing so if the housing is 10% of the project then you get one tenth of that percentage 13 increase, whatever that dimension is so you pick your dimension, you get the formula based on 14 the dimension for that concession, based on how much extra housing you're providing and what 15 part of the project it is and we have this on various kinds, as many categories as we can think of. 16 Height, setback which is on one dimension only at a time. Things like that you can do what you 17 want and I wouldn't mind if the person gets five feet they can us~ two feet here and three feet 18 there. If it's quantified it doesn't matter, whatever they want in terms of that. But that makes 19 sense. 20 21 I think also that we should have no city concessions in terms of dollars or land and I think that's 22 a useful thing and finally I think that pro forma should be acquired if you want to have a wild 23 card concession that goes beyond any of those specifically defined in the ordinance as being 24 quantitative. 25 26 Chair Martinez: Perfect timing. Commissioner Garber. 27 28 Commissioner Garber: So if I'm understanding correctly, ideally we would find a way to utilize 29 the various concessions to support some of our larger goals that are in the Comp Plan. By 30 definition the Comp Plan can't be opposed to State Law but there are some places we want more 31 density in the city. There are places where having higher limits make more sense or if there were 32 some way to make the concessions responsive to those particular areas, those particular 33 conditions, ideally I would like to find a way to do that. 34 35 I don't know if that can be applied or done that way given the objective of the way the legislation 36 is currently written. So Commissioner Lippert was exploring various discretionary ways, 37 making it more PTOD or PC like but again it's not clear to me if we can actually accomplish 38 that. 39 40 It does make sense to me that the concessions that we do make are more prescriptive rather than 41 one off and the reason there is so that we can take some of the uncertainty out of the process. 42 Perhaps one way to think about the opportunities to create incentives to do something that is 43 more highly aligned with the goals of our city versus just the legislation is to then create some 44 allowance or some way to allow greater concessions or the opportunity for the various bodies of 45 the city to entertain the greater concessions in certain areas. 46 47 Again, I don't know if this can be done but perhaps there are blanket prescriptive for the entire 48 city and then added concessions for particular areas. For example, PTOD zone, for instance near 18 1 transit or 101 or something of that sort. It's not clear to me exactly what those mechanisms are 2 but again trying to find ways to do that. 3 4 My other concern in this is being a built out city, and although we are nowhere near as dense as 5 Santa Monica and there are probably greater disparities in Palo Alto as there are in Santa Monica 6 and we have an RI zone and Santa Monica has single family homes but regardless there is 7 greater impact creating height and density in Palo Alto and having that be indiscriminate has 8 potentially greater impacts so one of the principles I am trying to bake into here is that the ·9 concessions that we do make, there is a relative equivalence. Higher, but even greater setbacks 10 or greater density but something else doesn't happen. But at any rate, there is some sort of trade 11 off so we get back to some balance of the impacts of the action relative to our broader 12 com~unity goals and impacts there. . 13 14 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Tanaka. 15 16 Commissioner Tanaka: I actually agree with that concept as well, that we have a Comp Plan and 1 7 the goals we ,have we should try to preserve. Perhaps one day of doing that is if somehow the · . 18 goals are not going to be met by the concessions is that at that point the project goes to some PC 19 type process or go through ARB or PTC. I do like the idea of being formal based so you have 20 some sort of measuring stick to use and I think Commissioner Keller had a reasonable approach 21 that can be looked at. 22 23 I think getting the pro formas would be very nice but I don't know how practical that really is. 24 One other idea I had which is, I know what this is trying to do which is provide more affordable 25 housing and that's a worthy goal we should try to achieve and this is a little bit out of the box 26 thinking so maybe it doesn't even fit here but we're adjacent to other areas that have 27 dramatically lower land value and I brought up the thing about transferable concessions. Is it not 28 possible let's say, if the developer has property in a nearby place that has dramatically lower land 29 values that that could be an incentive? What we're looking for is leverage. How do you get the 30 maximum amount of affordable housing in this area and one of the issues Palo Alto has is we 31 have extremely high land values so every dollar we· spend here doesn't go as far as an area with 32 lower land values so maybe this is for the City Attorney to think about but if we do that we get 33 the most good possible right? Because dollars in other areas go a lot further and it's not like 34 we're hundreds of miles away from cheaper land, we're not very far. We're adjacent to very 35 affordable land so that's something that can be thought of. 36 37 In regards to the limit of the current BMR standard, I think Palo Alto has done extremely well 38 and it seems we have no problem gettingBMRO housing built in Palo Alto which is great but I do 39 understand the concept of double dipping that Vice Chair Fineberg and Commissioner Keller 40 brought up so I think that somehow has to be harmonized so you don't get the double dipping 41 effect, and I don't think this is necessarily the right approach but whether it is rolling back some 42 of the BMR requirements or not allowing the kind of joker in the hand type of approach that 43 Commissioner Keller was mentioning earlier. 44 45 Mr. Larkin: Just want to jump in real quick because Commissioner Tanaka's idea intrigued me 46 but I looked at the statute and it says land that is donated for purposes of bonuses has to be 47 within the jurisdiction. 48 49 Commissioner Keller: Isn't there also a distance limit from the property, a quarter of a mile? 19 1 2 Mr. Larkin: That's not in the State Law. It might be within one of the ordinances. 3 4 Vice Chair Fineberg: I do have another question but I would like Director Williams to be 5 present so I'm going to hold that question even if it comes back a later round of comments. I 6 think the best route for us to implement the local adoption of Bonus Density Laws is something 7 similar to what we see out of Santa Monica where we are very explicit, we set baselines and 8 understandable,predictable rules that define what the concessions will be. We need to focus 9 very carefully a lot of attention on how the implementation of these Bonus Density Laws will 10 take a real form when they intersect with mixed use projects and PCs. The mixed use projects 11 open up many, many cans of worms. We've already seen two of them and the questions of 12 proportionality, questions of use, questions of what becomes a concession versus what became a 13 negotiated sort of waiver of most of the zoning regulations so I think we must carefully focus on 14 the mixed use and PCs. 15 16 I would like to echo other comments that it is important that our implementation includes some 17 sense of proportionality that we give you 'an extra amount because we get some extra amount 18 whether its one to two or one to five but not that it be, you give us one extra unit and get a 19 500,000 square foot office building. There would be some sense, and I'm exaggerating, but 20 there be some sense of proportionality. I think that in cases where the developers are getting the 21 ability to do mixed use office or commercial in areas' that do not permit that as a use as their 22 concession, that we in whatever manner our City Attorney's office determines is legal that we 23 require pro formas because if we are expected to make decisions based on those commercial, 24 office, industrial, whatever uses making the housing more affordable, that would be an 25 unsubstantiated claim unless we have a way to confirm the veracity of those claims and pro 26 formas, financial statements and projections of the project would be the city's way to confirm 27 that. 28 29 I have one more question that I'd like to ask later when the Director is back. 30 31 Chair Martinez: Okay, our primary role as Planning Commissioners is to make 32 recommendations on land use and while I can see from our own point of view to judge the 33 honesty of an applicant's claim that we might want to see the numbers, I don't think it helps us 34 weigh the value of the land use and I would hate to see us go down this road. 35 36 I would also like to agree with something the Planning Director said about it would be 37 unfortunate of us to ratchet back our inclusionary goals and ordinance in order to control the 38 misuse of concessions. I think what that would potentially do is suggest to some that okay, we 39 won't ask for concessions and we'll just give you less BMR units. I think we have a very noble 40 and effective policy as it works now and I don't think it would be a hardship on our city to find 41 an effective means of increasing FAR or another measure proportionally to accommodate the 42 state code. 43 44 I would suggest in regard to Commissioner Garber's concern about how do we effectively sort of 45 encourage the proper use of concessions. One thing we might do is not allow concessions for 46 height and the reason why is we already have Council directive and Comp Plan policies that say 47 we will consider increases in height in transit oriented areas and so by that way we are 48 encouraging housing in those areas of higher density housing in those areas and in places say 49 closer to RI zones and where they impact land uses, adjacent land uses, we don't even have to go 20 1 that way. Let's continue with our Comp Plan policy that we have. It's a good one. ·It has other 2 merits to it regarding pedestrian travel, public transit uses, reducing carbon footprint and let's 3 focus on concessions that allow development which is the purpose of this law, allow .4 development to proceed without taking use of the land, making proper land use developments 5 rather than allowing it to be abused by height and things that go against the core of what is 6 essential in our Conlp Plan. In other words, we value the development and urban design of new 7 development in the context of the city and let's not sort of give that away by allowing 8 inappropriate use of increased height. 9 10 Commissioners, let's try to go one more round of comments, three minutes and really try to give 11 staff some feedback of what you would like to see in our ordinance. 12 13 Commissioner Lippert: I'm not going to go into the details of how important this law is. It's 14 pretty significant in terms of us achieving the goals of what we have to do in terms of providing 15 affordable housing in this community. 16 1 7 If you look at the notion of increased floor area, increased height and relief of setbacks it's 18 talking about the same thing, density. Its really talking about is increasing the mass or the 19 density of housing and how you achieve it whether it be make the building taller, make it wider, 20 increase the density of it, very unimportant. What is important here I believe is looking at with 21 these incentives, encouraging development in the right parts of the city and its happened in an 22 appropriate way without becoming an imposition on this community and using it to further the 23 goals of the Comp Plan and the housing element. 24 25 What I would like to see happen here with regard to this is to say that whatever the height, 26 whatever the relief for setbacks, whatever the floor area is, the portion that is the affordable low 27 income housing other parts of the building can't exceed what's being done here in terms of 28 density so if someone or the developer is suggesting increasing the mass of the building, the 29 height or width, it has to be solely dedicated to the affordable housing element; not that they can 30 expand the building beyond the boundaries and apply it to market rate housing, apply it to more 31 commercial floor area and that would begin to establish an envelope or some restrictions so that 32 the wild card that Commissioner Keller was talking about really can't be played. They have to 33 belly up to the bar and say we are really serious about incentivizing or creating more housing 34 here and again, one of the limitations I would say is corridors, staircases, exiting, all the lobbies, 35 all those areas that are incidental to the building couldn't be loaded onto what those bonus 36 concessions are either so it begins to reign in some of those standards. Does that make sense at 37 all? . 38 39 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Garber with a follow up. 40 41 Commissioner Garber: It's really just a question because I'm not quite understanding the 42 concept you are trying to get out. This is what I heard and I'm not sure I heard it right. Let's say 43 I'm an applicant and I proposed a mixed use property someplace and I'm asking for concessions- 44 because I've got a number ofBMR units I'm going to create but I also have commercial I want 45 to do and one of the concessions I'm asking for is height so I build to whatever the setbacks I am 46 allowed to for commercial and then I create a tower out of my BMR and then that's it? Is that 47 what's happening? 48 21 1 Commissioner Lippert: I'm not suggesting at all that your commercial couldn't violate the rules, 2 that you couldn't take that commercial and put it on the top of the building. What I'm 3 suggesting is that those incentives and those increases for additional density cannot exceed 4 what's being proposed as the benefit in below market rate housing so if you're going to be 5 building 5,000 square feet of below market rate housing in this project, the concessions can't 6 exceed the -amount of square footage ... 7 8 Commissioner Garber: You're talking about you end up with some FAR and that envelope of 9 FAR can't be mitigated. You can reshape it but you can't be above -or below or at least above 10 that amount of FAR. 11 12 Commissioner Lippert: Right, so you can't say add another 5,000 square feet of commercial to 13 the building. You could only add another 5,000 square feet of below market rate housing. So in 14 other words, your incentives don't drive the other development or the other floor areas in the 15 project. 16 17 Commissioner Garber: So as an applicant I wouldn't be able to add additional market rate 18 housing, he it rental or condo or whatever to pay for for instance, a bunch of FAR additions. 19 20 Commissioner Lippert: That's exactly right and Commissioner Keller made a very good point 21 here and I apologize because its very complex but we already have in our ordinance here that we 22 have to provide a certain number of below market rate units when we build housing and if 23 somebody were to come along and say well, I want to take those units offsite and have them be 24 an in lieu fee, well then they don't get a concession for that. That's removed from that project 25 and therefore, that one concession isn't part of this project because all those market rate units 26 have been taken ofl'site. 27 28 However, if somebody wanted to double the number of market rate units, have at it. You can get 29 a relief on your setbacks, you can get a relief on your height and up to three concessions in terms 30 of the density. I apologize, double BMR. 31 32 Chair Martinez: Okay, Commissioner Keller. 33 34 Commissioner Keller: A couple of observations. I believe our BMR ordinance requires that the 35 BMR units be on site and it's the city's option to put them elsewhere in terms of in lieu fees that 36 the city does not allow developers to request that. It's the city's option to do that, that's my 37 understanding but I may be wrong. 38 39 The second thing is that I am very sympathetic with the idea of increasing density in PTOD but 40 we're already doing that so we don't need to triple dip in terms of providing increased PTOD 41 and increasing for concessions and increasing for higher concessions because PTOD the process 42 already handles that. If we want to handle something near freeways we should have a zoning for 43 that so I think our Comp Plan is already handled based on the way we have our zoning anyway 44 so I think that that's already in our process so we should let the normal process work with the 45 concessions on top of that kind of the way we talked about. 46 47 I'm sympathetic with Chair Martinez's comment about capping heights. I'm not sure if that's 48 legal, whether if people ask for a concession on height can we simply say no? I don't know the 49 answer to that but I do think there seems to be some consensus first of all, in terms of some 22 1 proportionality and prescriptive,.there is a consensus in terms of worrying about projects that are 2 slightly housing and mostly something else, getting lots of concessions that are disproportionate 3 so I think that's a clear consensus of the Commission. 4 5 There are several people who seem to be sympathetic to the idea of double dipping for the first 6 concession and I have to say that I am supportive of exceeding the 15%. I am happy to give a 7 second concession when you get to 200/0, a third when you get to 30% or more. That's what we 8 want to encourage, giving the first concession for free for something they already have to do. To 9 me that' sdouble dipping and that's when the joker comes in, the wild card, to our zoning . 10 ordinance. It says break a rule for free for something you're already doing and that's something ·11 we have to undo by forcing them to use that concession for FAR because that's what they would 12 probably have to use it for first and if they want to go beyond that, then great. Have at it. 13 14 I would also be happy with the idea of having something in the ordinance that gives us more 15 discretion for 100% affordable housing developments. That makes a lot of sense so there is a lot 16 of consensus there, some areas of disagreement so we seem to be getting reasonably close. 17 18 Commissioner Garber: I get entirely and appreciate Commissioner Keller's comments that the 19 zoning already is beginning to tell us where we want height and density which I entirely 20 appreciate. My comments were really focused on areas of the city that have, for whatever 21 . reason, we haven't considered or understood that may be abhorrent to that and that's really my 22 only caution there. I'm really intrigued by the Chair's suggestion about not including height as 23 one of the concessions because we have other processes which allow for height and maybe that is 24 a very valid way of approaching it. 25 26 Finally, I also share the Chair's caution regarding pro formas which I believe except for really 27 unusual circumstances is really a panacea and what our focus should be on is the use of the 28 property and the benefit the projects give to the community versus trying to figure out whether 29 the applicant is making money or not. Not to be crass about it, but if an applicant wants to go 30 out of business and give a great benefit to the city then its fine by me and-I don't need to know 31 how much money they are making or not, making, nor do I want to create an incentive that if they 32 are spending a lot of money then it's a good thing. I really don't think it's our business to be in 33 that. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: I'd just like to ask my fellow Commissioner Garber how he thinks about 36 the idea of requesting pro formas if you have one that is not of this fixed menu of concessions. If 37 somebody asks for a new concession or concession beyond then they provide pro formas to staff. 38 39 Commissioner Garber: Again, I think part of the reason that the Commission has been intrigued 40 and in a certain way incented to pursue the concept' of requiring pro formas is because a number 41 of applicants have come before us saying well, you know what, I can't make money if I provide 42 the mix you're asking for or the amount or if I don't get more area and I really don't care. That 43 should not be their reasoning that they are approaching the city for this. They need to either 44 follow the rule or ask for the rule to be interpreted or whatever that is but they shouldn't be 45 asking us to make that sort of, I'm not stating this very well, but they shouldn't be coming to us 46 with that as a basis for their decisioning, at least in that way. 47 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ' 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Relative to your question, I understand, but affordable housing for someone to purchase the housing, not for the developer to actually create it or not, right? We're not concerned whether the developer can afford it, we're concerned whether somebody can purchase it. Commissioner Keller: I think finding A for denial is the concessions incentive in order to provide for affordable housing units so that directly reflects the developers cost structure and that's why if you ask for something that's not a standard concession then pro forma is being used to justify it so that gives you a basis for denying it if that's not necessary. Commissioner Garber: City Attorney, I am assuming that that is correct? Mr. Larkin: As I mentioned earlier I think there is a conflict in the law but that is what that finding is. That finding is the concession requested is not required to provide housing at the affordability levels being proposed. There is a separate part of the statute that says you can request a concession if it will make the cost of the housing lower. Those two don't jive and I don't know how a court will make them jive at some point but as of right now there is a conflict. Commissioner Garber: Yeah, I guess I'm more familiar with the concept that is not iterated here on this particular page but to Commissioner Keller's point, if in fact, the way this reads, I would agree with you and I would recant what I said that sure, having them demonstrate that in fact isn't really a pro forma perhaps but some document that records the basis of cost which may not be there for how much money they are making but it creates the project for less money then maybe that is something that should be a part of it. Does that make sense? Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg with a follow up. Vice Chair Fineberg: I appreciate being allowed to follow up with Commissioner Garbe'r. The City Attorney referenced the section of the code that I kind of want to test your ideas on. If a developer wants to have the concession be mixed use in an area where industrial or commercial isn't normally allowed they can get a concession for that in violation of the city zoning if, and only if, the building of that industrial or office use allows .. ~ lean 't see it in the ordinance but if I can use the word loosely, subsidizes or reduces the cost of building that housing. My concern is how would we understand the veracity of that claim if you build 2,000 feet of office space, does that make 1,000 apartments more affordable? If you build 100,000 square feet of office does that make five units of housing more affordable and how will we know whether that claim is legitimate and its my understanding that we necessarily wouldn't be the ones that analyze the data, that staff might or third party consultants that have financial expertise so it takes it off our plate. Weare not all trained and I think I would have the capacity to understand the pro formas but we are not all trained at that so would knowing what we were doing is testing the underlying claim for the concession change your feeling on it? Commissioner Garber: In light of the conversation Commissioner Keller and I just had, I've allowed the door to open on my thinking so long as we're understanding this law correctly although it's interesting that as the City Attorney said there is some conflict there. My concern here is I am more interested in the benefits that the projects have for the city than I am for how the project benefits the applicant. Perhaps I'm being one sided here but that is really where the , basis of my interests are. 24 1 Vice Chair Fineberg: I would agree and I don't think what we're testing is how it benefits the 2 applicant but whether the office or industrial or commercial use benefits the production of the 3 affordable housing which is our goal here. 4 5' Chair Martinez: But if I may, how would that change your view? I can't make that final step. 6 7 Vice Chair Fineberg: There is some common sense test that if you're building, I keep coming 8 with these extreme scenarios so its easy to see, but building a 1,000 square feet of office would 9 . not make 1,000 apartment units more affordable in any order of magnitude to justify a change of 10 use. Building 100,000 square feet of office to build five units and we just had a developer say if 11 they were for sale units it would be the housing subsidizing the office if they were for sale units. 12 So each case is going to be different but there is some scenario, there are the numbers which will 13 speak for themselves and you don't know unless you have the numbers. 14 15 Commissioner Garber: Thank you. So I don't have a direct answer and again, I am not an 16 applicant trying to convince the city of a particular project but it would seem to me that, not that 17 we've done this as a Commission directly in any way, but let's take the sort of examples that you 18 were talking about. If you had a large, talk in very relative terms, piece of property and you had 19 the opportunity to have a big impact on the amount of affordable housing that the city could have 20 and you're only providing let's say what's allowed and your first proposal was to do what's 21 allowed plus the 1 %, I don't think I would need a cost benefit analysis to say well you know 22 what, you've got a big piece of property, it should be a lot more relative to the amount of 23 housing that we're trying to get into the city given the size of your property. 24 25 You could probably tum that into a formula and the second scenario is that another applicant 26 comes in and says I've got a really big piece of property and I could do what's allowed but I 27 want to do 30% more at which point again, I 40n't think I need a cost analysis, you know, how 28 much the project costs one way or another but that's a much better benefit for the city. It's a lot 29 more reasonable to imagine supporting this type of an application. 30 31 Commissioner LiRPert: There's another way to look at it and I don't think a pro forma is 32 necessary either. I agree with Commissioner Garber here. If you just look at say, the office 33 building or retail building or housing costs the same to build. Then you look at the density. 34 Office density, it is one person for every 250 square feet I think is what we use whereas if you 35 were to look at what an apartment is in terms of density to say two or three people in a 1,400 36 square foot unit, it's pretty small. There's a big difference in terms of density there. 37 38 If you were to look at what retail is, retail is again the same as what offices would use a blended 39 rate so it would be one for 250 or 300 square feet but then when you go to an auditorium or an 40 assembly building it's what, 50 square feet for every person even less than that. So that's the 41 way to look at it in terms of other than dollars and cents if you consider that it costs the same 42 amount to build it as an office building versus a multifamily complex. 43 44 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller, bring it home for us please. 45 46 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Let me make the observation that the three people who are 47 licensed architects don't need to see numbers, probably because they already understand them 48 and they already know what they would be. Then there are two, possibly a third Commissioner 49 who aren't licensed architects don't have a way of understanding it without seeing some sort of 25 1 numeric analysis but that may be an interesting way of distinguishing this so I guess it may 2 depend on whether the fourth person~ the new person added to the Commission is an architect or 3 not which way this goes but the thing that's interesting to me is that I think there is a consistency 4 with respect to our City Attorney describes two clauses in the ordinances as the State ordinances . 5 being inconsistent and I think they are consistent. 6 7 One ordinance says the whole thing, project, is affordable so the purpose of concessions is to 8 make affordability and the other says the purpose of concessions is to reduce the cost and it 9 seems to me those are opposite sides of the same coin and the real question is how big the coin 10 needs to be to make it affordable but essentially the concessions are used to reduce the price. 11 That's how they become below market rate is by reducing the price so it seems to me that the 12 ordinance is pretty clear but I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on TV. 13 14 This is all about the developer's cost structure in terms of this. I want to say one more thing 15 about this just to tie it up and that is we don't really care about whether the developer makes a 16 profit. What we care about is the production of affordable housing. That's what we care about. 17 We also care about minimizing the impacts of affordable housing. Concessions increase the 18 impact to affordable housing so the extent we can minimize the impacts, by minimizing the 19 concessions to those that are absolutely required to provide the affordable housing and pro 20 formas can help us quantify that or some sort of quantification helps us figure out the degree to 21 which this, and I'm suggesting it not be for all concessions but really for wild card concessions 22 when they ask for something that isn't part of our menu, then they have to provide pro formas to 23 be analyzed by staff or consultants. 24 25 It seems to me that provides the basis for rebutting the presumption that it is for the purpose and .26 is needed. Thank you. 27 28 Commissioner Tanaka: Mine are quick so you'll have to call on Commissioner Garber. So I 29 support the idea of perhaps no height concessions. That seems to make sense to me. I think one 30 thing we want to do as a safety, this whole revision, is to allow anyone to contest a concession 31 that the project is getting and take it to review for the PTC. I think that might be a good 32 safeguard unless there is something really crazy that happens. 33 34 I forgot to mention it earlier but I do support the concept that we need some sort of mechanism 35 that gets rid of this double dipping in terms of, we already require the BMR we already get a lot 36 of BMR built. There is no need to give concessions for what is already required so we need to 37 fix that whether it is reducing the FAR and making that a concession or taking away the BMR 38 requirement. I'm not sure what it is but something has to make this consistent. Thanks. 39 40 Chair Martinez: Finally Vice Chair Fineberg. 41 42 Vice Chair Fineberg: I just want to clarify that in my view, we shouldn't be looking at the pro 43 formas to determine the value of the benefit to the city, whether it's valuable, what the density is. 44 To me, the narrowest reason would be when we are granting the concession that there is a land 45 use change and according to the code, if they can justify that the non-conforming use adjusts the 46 cost of the affordable housing, we need to test that claim. I'm not necessarily adverse to the 47 more general conditions that Commissioner Keller is stipUlating. Where if we go with a menu 48 and if it's something that's not on the menu and if it's legal, how we can justify that I'll leave in 49 the City Attorney's hands. 26 1 2 My last question is something for the Director. The reason we're having this discussion is to 3 figure out how to get more affordable housing built and when I think back on the last five years 4 I'm thinking of one big project that actually built houses, Arbor Real, and the rest of them paid in 5 lieu fees which we had, something like $7 million collected from maybe seven projects and that 6 went to buy the land at Ole's. Had we actually required those developments to build the actual 7 units, we would have had something, let's sayan average over 50 or 100 units at seven sites but . 8 we might have yielded something between 50 and 75 actual units with a higher value than a 9 micro unit that we are going to be bUilding. 10 11 So the economies don't work in my mind when we conglomerate money and then have to invest 12 in an account to build tiny units. The reason I'm going on about this is we, in each of those 13 projects, gave away setbacks, three feet along the length of fifteen houses or DEEs at no charge. 14 Then we didn't receive any sort of commensurate value of an actual unit being built because we 15 were paying in lieu fees so I know this i~ a little off the implementation of local ordinance but 16 maybe we want to look at how we define ARB granting of DEEs as setbacks where we are not 1 7 giving away those things for free and where if we require it be a concession then it also would 18 trigger the actual building of a physical unit and not an in lieu fee and that would be the highest 19 yield we could get instantly with no extra investment on the city ,no requirement to find 20 additional land with no requirement to get outside funds. We could instead of giving those away 21 we could get actual units so I don't know if we define DEEs differently in the implementation of 22 this or do we just need to go back and tweak that in other places in our zoning. 23 24 Mr. Williams: I think the DEEs and other exceptions might have been granted for those projects 25 weren't done because they were providing affordable units so to me that's sort of a separate 26 issue. Are we appropriately providing DEEs? It wasn't under the rubric of this ordinance, this 27 state law that we were doing it. We would have to look at what that sort of balance is. I would 28 point out though, I can think of my count would be that we probably have built or enabled 150 29 units from those projects, affordable units. 30 31 Vice Chair Fineberg: How many of those were in actual housing developments versus in lieu 32 fees and then that in millions of dollars more built 100% affordable projects somewhere else? 33 34 Mr. Williams: I'd say its about fifty-fifty because the one you might not be thinking of is the 35 bridge housing project with the CJL project with 50 entirely affordable onsite units were part of 36 that project so that's one that was onsite. Ten of the classic were onsite and the others were 37 paying in lieu fee. 38 ·39 Vice Chair Fineberg: Sterling Park paid in lieu fees and then at least in my mind the one right 40 next to Altaire is 100% affordable so I don't think if that as the units within the project. To me 41 that was a sort of set aside and their in lieu fees paid for that at a different site and then they had 42 to bring millions of dollars and bonds so that to me would be more like Treehouse or 801 Alma 43 but the only ten that I could think of was Arbor Real that actually got built. 44 45 Mr. Larkin: Sterling Park has ten onsite units and paid in lieu fees for ten. Redwood Gate has 46 requirements for seven so it was seventeen onsite u~its that were not built in exchange for 47 leveraging the Treehouse Project and 801 Alma Project so its apples and oranges in a sense but 48 there were a substantial number of units to be built or leveraged in the case of in lieu fees. 49 27 1 But to your first point, in order to get the bonus concessions the units have to be onsite so that is 2 an incentive to build the units onsite instead of in lieu fees. 3 4 . Chair Martinez: Okay Commissioners, my job is to close the public hearing which I should have 5 done earlier and thank you staff for being here and close this item. We'll take a ten minute 6 break. 28 CITY OF PALO ALTO Agenda Date: To: From: Subject: August 15, 2013 Architectural Review Board Clare Campbell, Planner 6 Architectural Review Board Staff Report Department: Planning and Community Environment 537 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00268]: Request by Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects for a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow the proposed roof-top canopy to exceed the 40 foot height limit by 11 '-6" ·in the CD-C(P) zone district. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend the Director of Planning and Community Environment approve the proposed project, based upon the required findings Attachments A and subject to the conditions of approval (Attachment C). BACKGROUND Previous Review The ARB reviewed the project on April 18, 2013 and voted to recommend approval of the project. The related staff report has been included as Attachment E for reference and additonal background information. The proposed DEE project is consistent with the primary project's approved ARB and Context-Based Design findings as provided in Attachment B. Project Description The previously approved project was for a new two-story 14,557 square foot office building with one floor of below grade parking for 19 spaces, utilizing vehicle lifts for 10 spaces. The project also provides a large open space area with a 3,580 sf roof-top terrace. The requested Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is to allow a permanently installed canopy element to cover the majority of the roof-top terrace that would exceed the allowable 40 foot height limit by 11'-6". Please refer to the applicant's project description and plans for additional clarification (Attachments D and F). 13PLN-00268 Page 1 of3 . DISCUSSION Zoning· Compliance Due to the proximity of a residential zone (RM-40), the project is limited to a 40 foot height limit, instead of the standard 50 foot limit in the CD-C zone district. The proposed roof-top tensile shade structure exceeds the 40 foot height limit by 11' -6" and requires a DEE to exceed the height limit. Design Enhancement Exception The purpose of a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is to permit a minor exception to zoning regulations when doing so will enhance the design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site, or its in1pact on surrounding properties. A DEE may be requested for the following circumstances (PAMC Section 18.76.050(b)): (1) Design enhancement exceptions may be granted to the site development and parking and loading requirements otherwise applicable under Title 18, as part of the architectural review process, when such exceptions will enhance the appearance and design of commercial and multiple-family development and other development subject to architectural review. (2) Items for which design enhancement exceptions may be granted include, but are not limited to, dormers, eave lines, roof design, bay windows, cornices, parapets, columns, arcades, fountains, art, ornamentation, atriums, balconies, trellises, moldings, balustrades, stairs, entry features, and other minor architectural elements and design features. (3) Generally, design enhancement exceptions are limited to minor changes to the setback, daylight plane, height, lot coverage limitations, parking lot design and landscaping configuration, and additional flexibility in the required proportion between private and common open space. (4) No design enhancement exception shall be granted under this section that would increase floor area, decrease the number of required parking spaces, decrease the amount of required on-site landscaping, or decrease the required open space. The requested DEE to exceed the height limit is consistent with the types of allowable exceptions cited above. Staff supports the proposed DEE, and the findings for approval are provided in Attachment A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to California Environmental Quality act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: 13PLN-00268 Draft DEE Findings Approved ARB Findings and Context-Based Design Findings Draft Conditions of Approval Project Description* ARB Staff Report, April 18, 2013 Page 2 of3 . Attachment F: Development Plans (Board Members Only)* * Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff COURTESY COPIES Lund Smith: lund@wsjproperties.com Prepared By: Clare Campbell, Planner M~nager Review: Amy French, Chief Planning Offici~. 13PLN-00268 Page 3 of3 ATTACHMENT A Design Enhancement Exception Findings (P AMC 18.76.050) 537 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00268] The requested Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is to allow a permanently installed canopy element to cover the majority of the roof-top terrace that would exceed the allowable 40 foot height limit by 11 ' -6". (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the site is partially located within 150 feet from a residential zone (RM -40) where the height limit is 40 feet; the remaining portion of the lot can be built to 50 feet. The canopy does not functionally serve its' appropriate purpose and is a less than attractive feature if it were covering only half of the roof-top terrace, where the height limit. allows its placement. (2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve ·the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18. 76.020(d). This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the roof-top canopy adds architectural interest to the building and enhances the connection with the street. (3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that 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. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project will be constructed in accordance with all code requirements of the City of Palo Alto and will be neither detrimental nor injurious to surrounding properties, public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience., The new canopy element will enhance the site and add value to the site and immediate vicinity. ATTACHMENT B APPROVED ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 537 Hamilton Avenue / File No. 13PLN-00087 Architectural Review Findings (PAMC 8.76.020) (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements 0/ the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates quality design that recognizes the importance of the area as described. in the Comprehensive Plan. The project is also consistent with The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies related to business and. economics. The Comprehensive Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace existing commercial properties so that these commercial areas are more competitive and better serve the community. (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environm.ent of the site .. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the existing environment is comprised of buildings of various height, incl.uding 2 .. 5 stories (parking garage and adjacent commercial buildings) and the proposed building, with its scale, massing, and architectural style, fits within this context. (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the design of the new building is consistent with modem commercial buildings and creates an attractive new building for the site. (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is generally consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guide. (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated kind uses. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project enhances the walkway that leads to the public parking garage at the rear of the site. (6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is compatible with the surrounding office and retail uses of the downtown commercial area. (7) The planning and siting of the various jUnctions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building amenities (open space, parking, entry, etc.) are accessible and attractive to users. (8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the junction of the structures. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides an open space area with a roof-top terrace for visitors and tenants that is functional and desirable. Page 1 of4 ATTACHMENTB (9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project's design concept. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the open space is compatible with the project's design. (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building is easily approachable by all modes of transportation and the circulation is safe. (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed tree removals are supported by the city staff and are not considered significant as to require retention. The new landscape plan for the street frontage will create a new natural area that would be desirable and attractive. (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function. This finding can be made in the affirmative, see Findings 2, 3, 4 and 13. (13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of pi ant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment. This fmding can be made in the affirmative in that the project includes a landscaped street frontage and provides planters on the roof-top terrace to enhance the building. (14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant to reduce consumption of water. in its installation and maintenance. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the selected landscaping (planters and frontage area) is relatively low maintenance and drought tolerant. (15) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and. high recycled content materials. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the projectintends to utilize low-e glazing, sunshades, low-flow toilets, highly efficient mechanical systems, drought tolerant plantings, and other construction materials with recycled content. (16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection 18. 76.020(a). This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project design promotes visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety. Page 2 of 4 ATTACHMENTB APPROVED CONTEXT -BASED DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS 537 Hamilton Avenue / File No. 13PLN-00087 Pursuant to P AMC 18.18.11 O(b), in addition to the findings for Architectural Review contained in PAMC 18.76.020(d), the following additional ~ndings have been made in the affirmative: (1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment. The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly ~nvironment, and connectivity through design , elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that a covered walkway for pedestrians is provided along the street frontage and bike racks are provided near the building entrance. The project als.o \ includes bike lockers in the garage to support the bicycle environment. (2) Street Building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the facade includes glazing and a covered area along the street frontage creating a connection to the sidewalk and street. (3) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project has incorporated articulation that facilitates the appearance of reducing the mass of the building. (4) Low-Density Residential Transitions. Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. This finding does not apply. (5) Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for residents, visitors, and/or employees of the site. This ,finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides open space with the roof-top for tenants and visitors that is functional and desirable. (6) Parking Design. Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding does not apply. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project's parking is located within the below-grade garage and does not detract from the above grade development or conditions. (7) Large (Multi-Acre) Sites. Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. This finding does not apply. Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENT B (8) Sustain ability and Green Building Design. Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. This finding can be made in the affinnative in that the project intends to utilize low-e glazing, sunshades, low-flow toilets, highly efficient mechanical systems, drought tolerant plantings, and other construction materials with recycled content. Page 4 of4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 537 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00268] Design Enhancement Exception PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT ATTACHMENTC The Architectural Review Board (August 15, 2013) recommended approval of the application referenced above, and the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved the project on xxx, 2013. Project Planner: Clare Campbell PLANNING -DIVISION 1. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans and related documents received June 18, 2013, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 2. The Con4itions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building permits related to this DEE project. 3. The Conditions of Approval specified for the related building entitlement 13PLN-00087 shall remain in full effect and not changed unless related to the roof-top canopy. 4. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 5. Government Code Section 66020 provides that 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-DA Y PERIOD OR TO FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE V ALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. 6. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 7. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, Page 1 of2 ATTACHMENT C 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 its actual attorney's 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. . Page 2 of2 ATTACHMENT 0 K 0 R T H SUN S E RI HAG Ii V A R CReceived JUN 1 8 2013 537 Hamilton Avenue June 13, 2013 Department of Planning & ~munlty Environment . Proiact Description . The proposed project is a 14,567 square foot office building with parking below the building. The site is bounded by two public right of ways which provides a unique opportunity to design a mid-block building with windows on three sides. A 10 foot setback is provided on Hamilton Avenue. Parking is proposed 1/2. level below-grade, providing parking for 18 cars, with two office floors beginning 1/2 level above grade. . The proposed building design presents a layered building elevation facing Hamilton Avenue. The·elevation is composed of a textured stone plane with a projecting glass volume expressed at the second floor. This south .facing elevation provides a unique opportunity to create a very transparent building skin, shaded by cable supported glass sunshades. The glass· system is· composed of. very high quality components, including clear low e vision glass, opaque spandrel glass, patterned glass with a ceramic frit; and features spider fittings to anchor the glass. The cable supported sunshades are translucent laminated glass. . The glass volume extends upward to create a transparent parapet, allowing views to and from a garden terrace. The solid layer of the Hamilton elevation is clad. with textured stone panels, offering a distinct contrast to the glass system. The· north· and east elevations· are composed of plaster with· a window system 'consisting of clear lowe glass, spandrel glass and painted aluminum panels. The expansive window line will create an inspiring work space with abundant natural light. The northeast corner of the building features vertical panels of the same textured . stone installed on the Hamilton elevation, marking this mid-block pedestrian intersection. The parking entrance is located at grade on the west side. of the site, the lobby entrance is also at grade on the east .side of the site, with a central bay with office space located 1/2 level above-grade at the center of the site on Hamilton Avenue. A large opening is proposed at the exterior wall on the western property line adjacent to the parking entrance to provide natural light to the first floor. office space and to the . adjacent property. Vertical circulation elements including an elevator, stair and landings at each floor are expressed as a cubic volume extending through all levels of the building at the southeast corner, rendered in red. Featuring this taller vertical element at this corner of the site emphasizes the building entrance and vertical circulation, while providing a scale reference to the taller building directly to the east of the· site .. 650 CALIFORNIA FOURTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94108-2708 FACSIMIL.E 415-954-1970 TELEPHONE 415-954-1960 WWW.KSHA.COM " ) , " / ihe landscape design on the ground level will ,incorporate a modern planting aesthetic sensitive to storm water treatment, water efficiency, and sustainable biodiversity and 'increase the available bike parking for the project The roof deck will provide quality outdoor opan space for tenants in the building. The roof deck will ,also feature modular outdoor seating for flexible event programming ahd employee respite, precast planters to screen the' 'unoccupied area of the roof,. and rich accent paving to compliment the featured materials of the building facades. Atensile shade structure will offer cover and shade for roof occupants. , ' ' Sustainable features include high performance glazing, sunshades, highly efficient mechanical, systems, low flow toilet fixtures and drought tolerant planting featured at the center of the site adjacent to Hamilton Avenue. ' , A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE)' is being' sought to allow the installation ,of a tensile shade structure at the roof terrace. The height of the tensile shade structure exceeds the 40' height Iil1Jit applied to a portion of· the site within '150' of a RM-40 residential zone (see graphic on following page). During the Preliminary ARB hearing for this project the ARB encouraged the project sponsor to create a more active & visible roofscape for the project This tensile shade structure responds directly to, this request, enhancing the architectural character of the project while providh1g valuable shade for those that occupy the space. The Palo Alto ARB has been very supportive of this design concept and asked that we pursue a DEE to allow the, inclusion of this feature. We believe that the following findings apply to this request for a DEE: The granting of the, application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would nototherwisebe accomplished through strict· application of the minimum requirements of this· title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 1B.76.020(d); and ' The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicininty and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety; general welfare or convenience. · . / '\ ) " I ATIACHMENTE ~.~~ .,~'~~~.;") c~tl.'~~'·Ca ·~.ii~ ''''-' "~>'.'; ".,.~r=t .. ~~AA ~;; :~ ::: .. '~ -Ii 16 -~ ~~ .. ~t' . · Archi~uira1",Revie-w ,ow (~~r.~~.1he·~jrettor··"~Qt , .J11.g-, , .. (t~mmlmiJ;y EnVir~nineDt 'ipprove i:ne·prOJl':lie4 piOjeCt£b8§ed: ~ntl\e 1"~~' fib41i.'~~~ A: &; B)~ subje~ (p tbe cQJlditi()~ of.a~tp.vat(A~~~l~, "-,. . . .. ' " "" . ,t" .'. -.-=>. \ -r ,' .... ' The street-facing fa~ade would include a three-story tower element painted red (viewed inside the building for the first two floors) emphasizing the primary entrance on the right front comer of the building. The entrance to the below grade parking garage is shown located on the opposite side of the fa~ade to maintain a balanced ground floor design. The front fa~ade would be comprised of textured beige colored stone and clear glass with dot frit coating for the. for the ground floor base. Above the ground floor, glazing would extend across the full elevation and would include two gl~s sunshades providing screening for the second floor occupants. The rear and alley side of the building would have similar aesthetic treatments with many tall inset windows. These two painted (white) cement plaster elevations would include clear glass, aluminum panels at each window base, and textured stone at the comers to provider interest. The west elevation would have a simple treatment with the cement plaster wall painted white would. employ a clear anodized fixed grille treatment. The project includes a 3,580 sf roof deck with a row of planters separating the mechanical enclosure from the usable area. The roof deck includes pavers, outdoor furniture, and possibly a sun shade element. In addition to the roof-top planters, the project includes new landscaping along the front of the building. The project includes the removal of seven existing non-regulated trees within the site, and the two London Plane street trees would remain. The below grade garage would provide 19 parking spaces, with 10 of them utilizing car lifts. In addition to vehicle parking and long term bike storage, some mechanical uses, including a new transformer, would be placed within unusable (for vehicle parking) areas of the garage. To accommodate the new driveway curb-cut to the garage, it appears that two to three on-street parking spaces would be eliminated. Please refer to the applicant's project description and plans for additional clarification (Attachments D and F). DISCUSSION Previous Review The ARB reviewed an earlier project concept on December 20, 2012 in a Preliminary Review. A repeated comment that was conveyed to . the . applicant was that the fa~ade needed more articulation ·and further development. Other comments made at the meeting were regarding: (1) relocatiing the transformer to a less intrusive location; (2) making the landscape area usable for people and not just ornamental; and (3) keeping the roof terrace as a desirable amenity for the project. Overall the project was well received by the ARB. Zoning Compliance A summary indicating the project's conformance with the Development Standards of the Commercial Downtown Zone District is provided as Attachment E. The standard for development of a 100% commercial project in the CD-C zone district is limited to a maximum of 1 : 1 (8,925 sf) for the floor area ratio (FAR). Additional floor area for commercial use is allowed with the USe of Transferrable Development Rights (TDR's). The project's proposed FAR (14,567 sf) complies Page 20f4 with the CD-C development standards, given the benefit of TDRs that could allow a total bUilding floor area of 17,850 square feet (2: 1 ). Due to the proximity of a residential zone (RM ... 40), the project is limited to a 40 foot height limit, instead of the standard 50 foot linlit in the CD-C zone district. This height limit impacts the originally proposed roof ... top shade structure. The applicant may choose to remove this completely or place a shade structure outside the 150 foot distance from the RM -40 residential zoning. This 150 foot boundary falls roughly down the middle of the building, leaving enough room to still have a shading element on the unaffected area of the roof. Parking . The proposed project, with 14,567 sf of FAR, requires a total of 58 parking spaces, and with the inclusion of specific credits, the project qualifieS for a reduction in the required on-site parking spaces. The on-site parking spaces required for this project is based on 4,779 sf and is equal to 19 spaces. The proposed plan includes the required 19 spaces within the below grade garage and complies with the on-site parking requirements. Required Spaces before credits 58 spaces Credits Assessed Spaces (based on 4,588 sf) 18 spaces Transfer of Development Rights (based on 5,000 sf) 20 spaces One-time 200 sf bonus 1 space Required Spaces after credits 19 spaces With the recent concerns regarding parking in the downtown, staff also reviews the loss of on street parking due to new development. For this project, it appears that two to three on-street spaces would be lost due to the new driveway curb-cut for the garage. To mitigate this loss, the applicant would be required to pay parking in-lieu fees for the number of spaces lost. Pedestrian ShOPPing Combining District The project is required to comply with the Pedestrian Shopping Combining District (P), which requires new construction and building alterations to provide design features intended to create pedestrian' or shopper interest, to provide weather protection for pedestrians, and to preclude inappropriate or inhannonious building design and siting. The required features include: (1) Display windows, or retail display areas; (2) Pedestrian arcades, recessed entryways, or covered recessed areas designed for pedestrian use with an area not less than the length of the adjoining frontage times 1.5 feet; and (3) Landscaping or' architectural design features intended to preclude blank walls or building faces. The project includes large windows for the majority of the ground floor elevations, meeting the retail/display window requirements. For the primary street frontage, the one large window is separated from the sidewalk by the new,landscaping and includes a partial dot frit treatment on the lower portion of the glazing. The project has 85· feet of street frontage, and therefore is 13PLN-00087 Page 3 of4 required to provide 128 sf of covered recessed area for pedestrian use. The project includes a four foot overhang along the front elevation, providing 340 sf of covered area, meeting the area requirement. Staff requests feedback from the ARB on the project's compliance with the pedestrian friendly elements described. Downtown Urban Design Guide T~e Downtown Urban Design Guide (Guide) provides direction to the applicant, staff and ARB regarding development and design in the downtown area. The Guide divides the downtown area . into districts, each having a unique identity and design characteristics. The project site is in the . Hamilton . Avenue District (Hamilton Avenue), which extends from Alma ·Street to Middlefield . Road. The Guide recommends promoting this area as "an active mixed use district which comfortably accommodates larger scale commercial office, civic, and institutional buildings" while maintaining. the "tree-lined pedestrian environment with complementary outdoor amenities to offset the urban intensity." The proposed commercial office project is consistent with the Guide and with the open glass design would create a new energy for the street. The new roof-top terrace and landscaping will also enhance and enliven the site and immediate vicinity. Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings In addition to Zoning Compliance and Architectural Review approval findings, Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings found in PAMC Chapter 18.18 are applicable to projects in the downtown commercial zone district. The applicable fmdings are provided in Attachment B, Draft Context Based Design Findings. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to California Environme~tal Quality act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQ A Guidelines Section 15,332 (In-fill Development Projects). The proposed project would riot result in any new significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft ARB Findings Attachment B: Draft Context-Based Design Findings Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Project Description* Attachment E: Zoning Compliance Table Attachment F: Development Plans (Board Members Only)* * Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff COURTESY COPIES Lund Smith: lund@wsjproperties.com Prepared By: Clare Campbell, Planner Manager Review: Amy French, Chief Planning Official 13PLN-00087 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF PALO ALTO Agenda Date: To: From: Subject: August 15, 2013 Architectural Review Board Clare Campbell, Planner Architectural Review Board Staff Report Department: Planning and Community Environment 636 Waverley Street [13PLN-00262]: Request by Hayes Group Architects for a Major Architectural Review of the demolition of a one story, 1,406 sq. ft. office building and construction of a four-story, 10,528 sq. ft. mixed-use building with commercial uses on the first and second floors and two residential units on the third and fourth floors on a 5,278 sq. ft. site in the CD-C(P) zoning district. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the . provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural ~eview Board (ARB) recommend the Director of Planning and Community Environment approve the proposed project, based upon the required findings (Attachments A & B) and subject to the conditions of approval (Attachment C). BACKGROUND Site Information The 5,278 square foot (sf) project site has an existing one-story, 1,406 sf commercially used building (originally developed as a residence) loc~ted in Downtown Palo Alto within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The site is bordered by a one-story commercial building on the left and a two-story apartment building on the right (14 units), and backs up to a public parking lot, as shown in Attachment G. At the end of the block, fronting Forest Avenue, the two comer parcels are developed with residential and mixed-use buildings that are five stories tall, and greater than five stories. The proj ect site is approximately one and a half blocks away from University Avenue and provides five vehicle spaces at the rear of the lot, though the site was never assessed as having parking spaces. There is one existing city street tree along the frontage; a Gingko tree. 13PLN-00262 Page 1 of 4 Project Description The project includes the demolition of the existing 1,406 sf structure and construction of a new four-story, 10,528 sf mixed-use building with two floors of commercial use (office proposed), approximately 5,050 sf, and two three-bedroom residential units (3,021 sf and 2,123 sf) with large open terraces above, including one on the roof. The required vehicle parking spaces are to be provided in a below grade parking facility, accessed through a proposed gate-controlled driveway on Waverley Street. The project utilizes parking lifts to meet the project's parking requirements. The design of the building, as described in the applicant's letter, "creates a dramatic modem form" with "vertical and horizontal zigzags of the concrete structural frame." The project features a fully glazed front fayade and the. prominent use of glazing on the remaining three elevations. The proposed materials include grey-toned, smooth integral color concrete, structural glazed window systems with aluminum frames; the glazing would be clear, insulated low-e glass. Grey corrugated metal panels are proposed for the roof screen element. The outdoor treatments include concrete pavers for the garage ramp and the .side walkway, one non-standard bike rack in front of the building, and landscaping elements, including a new 24- inch box Ginkgo street tree; the existing Ginkgo street tree will be removed due to the new driveway placement. The roof-top terrace would be furnished with landscape planters and outdoor seating. For each above-grade level, substantial open space is provided with outdoor terraces. Additional information is provided in the applicant's project description and plans, Attachments D and G. DISCUSSION Zoning Compliance A table indicating the project's conformance with the Development Standards of the Commercial Downtown is provided as Attachment F. The standard for development of a mixed-use project in the CD-C zone district is limited to a maximum of 2:1 for the floor area ratio (FAR), limited to 1:1 FAR for commercial and 1:1 FAR for residential. The project generally complies with the CD-C development standards. Open Space Requirements Mixed-use development in the CD-C zone is required to provide 20% Landscape Open Space (1,055 sf) in addition to 200 sf of Usable Open Space per residential unit. "Usable" open space can be private or common, but must have a minimum dimension of six feet to be considered usable. The project provides private balconies for each of the residential units providing more area than the required usable open space area. The project includes landscaping at grade and on the roof-top terrace. Pedestrian Shopping Combining District The project site is within the Pedestrian Shopping Combining District (P), which requires new construction and building alterations to provide design features intended to create pedestrian or shopper interest, to provide weather protection for pedestrians, and to preclude inappropriate or inharmonious building design and siting. The required features include: (1) Display windows, or 13PLN-00262 Page 2 of4 retail display areas; (2) Pedestrian arcades, recessed entryways, or covered recessed areas designed for pedestrian use with an area not less than the length of the adjoining frontage times 1.5 feet; and (3) Landscaping or architectural design features intended to preclude blank walls or building faces. The project includes a glass front for the ground floor elevation, meeting the retail/display window requirements. The project has 50 feet of street frontage, and therefore is required to provide 75 sf of covered recessed area for pedestrian u~e. The plans indicate a 100 sf covered area along the building front to comply with this requirement. Parking The required parking for this project, without any credits or exemptions, is 24 spaces; four for the residential units and 21 for the commercial space. The Zoning Code does allow the Planning Director to approve a Shared Parking Facilities reduction, for up to 20% of the required spaces (PAMC 18.52.080), based on the impacts of the project. The City'S Transportation Division reviewed a parking analysis (Attachment E) for this project, prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants, which made the determination that the project requires 21 parking spaces, and staff concurred with this finding. Based on this analysis, an 11 % reduction in the parking requirements would be supported. With this reduction applied to the project, the required parking would be a total of21 spaces. The project provides these spaces in a below grade parking facility and utilizes five four-stacker parking lifts. Downtown Urban Design Guide The Downtown Urban Design Guide (Guide) provides direction to the applicant, staff and ARB regarding development and design in the downtown area. The Guide divides the downtown area into districts, each having a unique identity and design characteristics. The project site is in the Hamilton A venue District (Hamilton Avenue), which extends from Alma Street to Middlefield Road. The Guide recommends promoting this area as "an active mixed use district which comfortably accommodates larger scale commercial office, civic, and institutional buildings" while maintaining the "tree-lined pedestrian environment with complementary outdoor amenities to offset the urban intensity." The project implements the goal statedin the Guide about massing along Hamilton Avenue, since the Guide indicates a preference for two to four story buildings "to complement the existing streetscape and enhance the building wall of Hamilton Avenue." The ARB is requested to provide comments on additional options for ground floor pedestrian amenities for the proj ect. Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings In addition to Zoning Compliance and Architectural Review approval findings, Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings found inPAMC Chapter 18.18 are applicable to projects in the downtown comnlercial zone district. The applicable findings are provided in Attachment B, Draft Context Based Design Findings. (1) Massing and Setbacks. Bulldings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project has incorporated articulation that facilitates the appearance of reducing the mass of the building. 13PLN-00262 Page 3 of4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to California Environmental Quality act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects). The proposed project . would not result in any new significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft ARB Findings Attachment B: Draft Context-Based Design Findings Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Project Description* Attachglent E: 636 Waverley Street Parking Evaluation, OS/21/13 Attachment F: Zoning Compliance Table Attachment G: Development Plans (Board Members Only)* * Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff COURTESY. COPIES David Kleiman [dldeiman@d2realty .com] Ken Hayes [khayes@thehayesgroup.com] Prepared By: Clare Campbell, Planner Manager Review: Amy French, Chief Planning Official 13PLN-00262 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF PA LO ALTO Agenda Date: To: From: Subject: August 15, 2013 Architectural Review Board Clare Campbell, Planner 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report Department: Planning and Community Environment 636 Waverley Street [13PLN-00262]: Request by Hayes Group Architects for a Major Architectural Review of the demolition of a one story, 1,406 sq. ft. office building and construction of a four-story, 10,528 sq. ft. mixed.;.use building with comnlercial uses on the first and second floors and two residential units on the third and fourth floors on a 5,278 sq. ft. site in the CD-C(P) zoning district. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303. RECOMMENDATION Staff recomnlends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recomnlend the Director of Planning and Community Environment approve the proposed project, based upon the required findings (Attachments A & B) and subject to the conditions of approval (Attachment C). BACKGROUND Site Information -The 5,278 square foot (sf) project site has an existing one-story, 1,406 sf commercially used building (originally developed as a residence) located in Downtown Palo Alto within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The site is bordered by a one-story commercial building on the left and a two-story apartment building on the right (14 units), and backs up to a public parking lot, as shown in Attachment G. At the end of the block, fronting Forest Avenue, the two comer parcels are developed with residential and mixed-use buildings that are five stories tall, and greater than five stories. The project site is approximately one and a half blocks away from University Avenue and provides five vehicle spaces at the rear of the lot, though the site was never assessed as having parking spaces. There is one existing city street tree along the frontage; a Gingko tree. 13PLN-00262 Page 1 of4 Project Description The project includes the demolition of the existing 1,406 sf structure and construction of a new four-story, 10,528 sf mixed-use building with two floors of commercial use (office proposed), approximately 5,050 sf, and two three-bedroom residential units (3,021 sfand 2,123 sf) with large open terraces above, including one on the roof. The required vehicle parking spaces are to be provided in a below grade parking facility, accessed through a proposed gate-controlled driveway on Waverley Street. The project utilizes parking lifts to meet the project's parking requirements. The design of the building, as described in the applicant's letter, "creates a dramatic modem form" with "vertical arid horizontal zigzags of the concrete structural frame." The project features a fully glazed front fayade and the prominent use of glazing on the remaining three elevations. The proposed materials include grey-toned, smooth integral color concrete, structural glazed window systems with aluminum frames; the glazing would be clear, insulated low-e glass. Grey corrugated metal panels are proposed for the roof screen element. The outdoor treatments include concrete pavers for the garage ramp and the side walkway, one non-standard bike rack in front of the building, and landscaping elements, including a new 24- inch box Ginkgo street tree; the existing Ginkgo street tree will be removed due to the new driveway placement. The roof-top terrace would be furnished with landscape planters and outdoor seating. For each above-grade level, substantial open space is provided with outdoor terraces. Additional information is provided in the applicant's project description and plans, Attachments D and G. DISCUSSION Zoning Compliance A table indicating the project's conformance with the Development Standards of the Commercial Downtown is provided as Attachment F. The standard for development of a mixed-use project in the CD-C zone district is limited to a maximum of 2: 1 for the floor area ratio (FAR), limited to 1: 1 FAR for commercial and 1: 1 FAR for residential. The project generally complies with the CD-C development standards. Open Space . Requirements Mixed-use development in the CD-C zone is required to provide 20% Landscape Open Space (1,055 sf) in addition to 200 sf of Usable Open Space per residential unit. "Usable" open space can be private or common, but must have a minimum dimension of six feet to be considered usable. The project provides private balconies for each of the residential units providing more area than the required usable open space area. The project includes landscaping at grade and on the roof-top terrace. Pedestrian Shopping Combining District The project site is within the Pedestrian Shopping Combining District (P), which requires new construction and building alteratioris to provide design features intended to create pedestrian or shopper interest, to provide weather protection for pedestrians, and to preclude inappropriate or inharmonious building design and siting. The required features include: (1) Display windows, or 13PLN-00262 Page 2 of4 retail display areas; (2) Pedestrian arcades, recessed. entryways, or covered recessed areas designed for pedestrian use with an area not less than the length ·of the adjoining frontage times 1.5 feet; and (3) Landscaping or architectural design features intended to preclude blank walls or building faces. The project includes a glass front for the ground floor elevation, meeting the retail/display window requirements. The project has 50 feet of street frontage,and therefore is required to· provide 75 sf of covered recessed area for pedestrian use. The plans indicate a 100 sf covered area along the building front to comply with this requirement. Parking The required parking for this project, without any credits or exemptions, is 24 spaces; four for the residential units and 21 for the commercial space. The Zoning Code does allow the Planning Director to approve a Shared Parking Facilities reduction, for up to 20% of the required spaces (PAMC 18.52.080), based on the impacts of the project. The City's Transportation Division reviewed a parking analysis (Attachment E) for this project, prepared by TJKM Transportation· Consultants, which made the determination that the project requires 21 parking spaces, and staff concurred with this finding. Based on this analysis, an 11 % reduction in the parking requirements would be supported. With this reduction applied to the project, the required parking would be a total of 21 spaces. The project provides these spaces in a below grade parking facility and utilizes five four-stacker parking lifts. Downtown Urban Design Guide The Downtown Urban Design Guide (Guide) provides direction to the applicant, staff and ARB regarding development and design in the downtown area. The Guide divides the downtown area into districts, each having a unique identity and design characteristics. The project site is in the Hamilton Avenue District (Hamilton Avenue), which extends from Alma Street to Middlefield Road. The Guide recommends promoting this area as "an active mixed use district which comfortably accommodates larger scale commercial office, civic, and institutional buildings" while maintaining the "tree-lined pedestrian environment with complementary outdoor amenities to offset the urban intensity." The project implements the goal stated in the Guide about massing along Hamilton Avenue, since the Guide indicates a preference for two to four story buildings "to complement the existing streetscape and enhance the building wall of Hamilton Avenue." The ARB is requested to provide comments on additional options for ground floor pedestrian amenities for the project. Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings In addition to Zoning Compliance and Architectural Review approval findings, Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings found in P AMC Chapter 18.18 are applicable to projects in the downtown commercial zone district. The applicable findings are provided in Attachment B, Draft Context Based Design Findings. (1) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project 4as incorporated articulation that facilitates the appearance of reducing the mass of the building. 13PLN-00262 Page 3 of4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to. Califo.rnia Enviro.nmental Quality act (CEQA), this pro.ject is Catego.rically Exempt under CEQ A Guidelines Sectio.n 15332 (In-fill Develo.pment Pro.jects). The pro.po.sed pro.ject wo.uld no.t result in any new significant effects relating to. traffic, no.ise, air quality or water quality. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft ARB Findings Attachment B: Draft Co.ntext-Based Design Findings Attachment C: Draft Conditio.ns o.f Appro.val Attachment D: Pro.ject Descriptio.n* Attachment E: 636 Waverley Street Parking Evaluatio.n, 05/21113 Attachment F: Zo.ning Co.mpliance Table Attachment G: Develo.pment Plans (Bo.ard Members On1y)* * Prepared by Applicant; all o.ther attachments prepared by Staff COURTESY COPIES David Kleiman [dkleiman@d2realty.co.m] Ken Hayes [khayes@thehayesgro.up.co.m] Prepared By: Clare Campbell, Planner Manager Review: Amy French, Chief Planning OffiCia;t:J 13PLN-00262 Page 4 of 4 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 636 Waverley Street [13PLN-00262] Architectural Review Findings (PAMC 8.76.020) ATTACHMENT A (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates quality design that recognizes the importance of the area as described in the Comprehensive Plan. The project is also consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies related to business and economics. The Comprehensive Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace existing commercial properties so that these commercial areas are more competitive and better serve the community. The additional housing units proposed are also encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the existing environment is comprised of buildings of various heights, and the proposed building, with its scale, massing, and architectural style, fits within this context. (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the d~sign of the new building is consistent with modem commercial buildings in the higher intensity downtown area. (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is generally consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guide. (5) \ The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project, located within commercial area of the downtown, maintains an appropriate scale for the area and .uses, and complies with the applicable development standards for the CD C zone district. (6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is compatible with the surrounding office and retail uses of the downtown commercial area and the nearby five story apartment buildings. (7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. This fmding can be made in the affirmative in that the building amenities (open space, parking, entry, etc.) are accessible and attractive to users. (8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the junction of the structures. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides Page 1 of2 ATTACHMENT A open space areas with patios and balconies for visitors and tenants that are functional and· desirable. (9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project's design concept. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the open space is compatible with the project's design. (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building. is easily approachable by all modes of transportation and the circulation is safe. (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed tree removals are supported by the city staff and are not considered significant as to require retention. (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function. This fmding can be made in the affirmative, see Findings 2, 3, 4 and 13. (13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project includes a landscaped street frontage and provides planters on the roof-top terrace to enhance the building. (14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the selected landscaping (planters and frontage area) is relatively low maintenance and drought tolerant. (15) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project intends to utilize photovoltaic panels, high efficiency mechanical systems, and natural light; project is required to meet Cal Green Tier 2 requirements. (16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection 18. 76.020(a). This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project design promotes visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety. Page 2 of2 ATTACHMENTB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL CONTEXT -BASED DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS 636 Waverley Street [13PLN-00262] Pursuant to P AMC 18.18.11 O(b), in addition to the findings for Architectural Review contained in PAMC 18.76.020(d), the following additional findings have been made in the affirmative: (1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment. The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment,and connectivity through design elements. TIlis finding can be made in the affirmative in that a bike rack is provided near the building entrance. The project also includes bike lockers in the garage to support the bicycle environment. f (2) Street Building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s}, to create an environment that s1}pports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the facade includes· glazing and a covered area along the street frontage creating a visual connection to the sidewalk and street. (3) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project has incorporated articulation that facilitates the appearance of reducing the mass of the building. (4) Low-Density Residential Transitions. Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. This finding does not apply. (5) Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for residents, visitors, and/or employees of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides open space with balconies for tenants and visitors that is functional and desirable. (6) Parking Design. Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding does not apply. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project's parking is located within the below-grade garage and does not detract from the above grade . development or conditions. (7) Large (Multi-Acre) Sites. Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. This finding does not apply. (8) Sustainability and Green Building Design. Project design and materials to ach!eve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. This ATTACHMENTB finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project intends to utilize photovoltaic panels, high efficiency mechanical systems, and natural light; proj ect is required to meet CalGreen Tier 2 requirements. DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 636 Waverley Street [13PLN-002621 PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT ATTACHMENT C The Architectural Review Board (August 15, 2013) recommended approval of the application referenced above, and the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved the project on xxx, 2013. Project Planner: Clare Campbell PLANNING DIVISION 1. The project shall be in substantial confonnance with the approved plans and related documents received July 29, 2013, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.· 2. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building permits related to this project. 3. The current project is approved to use the one-time 200 square foot FAR bonus, as pennitted per PAMC 18.18.070(a)(l), and cannot utilize this bonus again for any future development. This note shall be added to the Building Permit plan set along with the standard project data required. 4. New construction and alterations in the CD-C zoning district ground floor space shall be designed to accommodate retail use and shall comply with the provisions of the Pedestrian (P) combining district. 5. Development Impact Fees, estimated at $225,342 shall be paid prior to the issuance of the project's building pennit. 6. The property owner shall be responsible for the regular maintenance and upkeep of the one non-standard bike racks placed within the city right of way. 7. All spaces using the proposed parking lifts shall accommodate large vehicles, such as minivans and sport utility vehicles. Transportation staff shall review and approve the proposed car lift prior to the building pennit submittal. 8. All 21 parking spaces shall be available to both the residents and office tenants at any time (i.e. no reserved parking). 9. The applicant shall provide a Lift Parking Management Plan that details standard operating procedures for the lift parking system including training elements, vehicle height/weight limitations, and emergency response procedures that include first-responder and operations Page 1 of17 ATTACHMENT C contact information. This plan shall be submitted to and reviewed by the Director of Planning & Community Environment prior to the occupancy of the new building. 10. The applicant shall be required to submit a Transportation Demand Management plan to be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to the issuance of building permits for the site. The plan shall include provisions such as passes or subsidies for all employees of the commercial space for using public transit, in addition to car sharing, bike facilities, transportation information kiosks, and the designation of a transportation demand coordinator for the building. 11. All future signage for this site shall be submitted for Architectural Review. 12. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 13. Government Code Section 66020 provides that 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 TO 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. 14. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 15. 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 its actual attorney's 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. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING ________________ _ SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. The trench drain in the garage ramp shall be directed to the storm drain system and not Page 2 of 17 ATTACHMENT C the sanitary sewer system. 2. The project shall provide the parking required by the parking assessment formula. Residential properties are not assessed, however, the comnlercial portions are and therefore shall be fully parked for assessment purposes to avoid paying parking impact or "in-lieu" fees. For parking assessment purposes I do not believe there can be a reduction or modification to the assessment formula. 3. The applicant shall clarify the note "Original right of way line of Waverley" shown on the plans. 4. Sheet A.2 it appears that there are truncated domes being placed in the ROW sidewalk on either side of the proposed driveway. Please clarify. 5. A 'Tree Care Permit' shall be obtained from the Urban Forestry division prior to any work on any tree or the removal of any tree. 6. The applicant shall remove and replace all curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the length of the project's Waverley frontage. The applicant shall grind and overlay (min. 2") the width of Waverley along the project's frontage. STANDARD CONDITIONS PRIOR TO FINAL PLANNING/ARB REVIEW 1. Conceptual grading, drainage and SWPPP plan: To verify the project adequately addresses grading, drainage and surface water infiltration, the applicant is required to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering (PWE) prior to the final ARB submittal. The plan must demonstrate that site runoff is conveyed to the nearest adequate municipal storm drain system and that drainage is not increased onto, nor blocked from, neighboring properties. The plan must also include a conceptual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including the permanent best management practices (BMP's) to protect storm water quality and control runoff, particularly if the "C.3" provisions of the City's Storm Water Pollution Ordinance apply (see C.3 below). Resources and handouts are available from PWE, including "Planning Your Land Development Project". The elements of the PWE-approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. MAP REQUIREMENTS 2. Parcel Map: A Preliminary Parcel Map and a Parcel Map are required for the proposed development. The applicant shall submit an application for a minor subdivision with the Planning Division. Public Works' Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps checklist must accompany the completed application. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the submitted map. No grading or building permi~s will be issued until the Parcel Map is recorded with the County Recorder. A digital copy of the Parcel Map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD88 for vertical survey controls. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF MAP Page 3 of 17 ATTACHMENT C 3. Developer's project manager: The subdivision includes significant complexity involving coordination of infrastructure design and construction. Developer shall appoint a Project Manager to coordinate with Planning, Public Works and Utility Department staff. Public Works will have regular communication with the Project Manager in order to facilitate timely review and approval of design and construction. INCLUDE IN SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT 4. Grading & excavation permit: A Grading and Excavation Permit is required for the project if the total quantity of cut and/or fill outside of the building(s) footprint exceeds 100 cubic yards or if the disturbed area is 10,000 sq.ft. or greater. A grading permit only authorizes grading and storm drain improvements, therefore, the following note shall be included on each grading permit plan sheet: "This grading permit will only authorize general grading and installation of the storm drain system. Other building and utility improvements are shown for reference information only and are subject to separate building permit approval." No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprints. 5. Survey datum: Plans shall be prepared using North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1988 for vertical survey controls throughout the design process. 6. Final grading & drainage plan: The plans shall include a final grading and drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional. This plan shall show existing and proposed spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan. Public Works encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences on our website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/eng-documents.htnll. 7. Impervious surface area: The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. For non residential properties, a Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant's monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering at the Development Center and on the Division's website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/eng-documents.html. 8. Stormwater sheet: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention -It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/eng documents.html. 9. Basement drainage: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this Page 4 of 17 ATTACHMENTC site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least ·10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow water to accumulate or stagnate. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7 3/4" below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 10. Basement Shoring: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 11. Basement light/stairwells: All exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells,· are required,to have a drainage system separate (up to the sump) from the basement wall/slab drainage system. Also, 8" of freeboard is required between the floors of the exterior basement-level spaces and any adjacent windowsills or doorsills. 12. Dewatering: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 15th through October 31 st due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Public Works may require the water to be tested· for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor nlust retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. 13. Work in the right-of-way: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is to be conducted in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk, driveway approach, curb, gutter or utility lateral work. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per Public Works' standards arid that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Page 5 of 17 ATTACHMENT C Permit for Construction in the Public Street fronl Public Works at the Development Center. 14. Street trees: Show all street trees in the public right-of-way or state that there are none. Include street tree protection details in the plans. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement installation within 10 feet of a street tree, must be approved by Public Works' arborist. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 15. Streetwork permit: A Permit for Construction in the Public Street ("streetwork permit") is required from all contractors perfonning work in the public right-of-way. All construction within the right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to the standard specifications and details of the Public Works and Utility Departments. 16. Logistics plan: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public and including, at a minimum: work hQurs, noticing of affected businesses, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors' parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto's Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map, which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering at the Development Center or online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/documents/eng LogisticsPlanPreparationGuidelines.pdf. Typically, the construction logistics plan is attached to an encroachment permit or a Permit for Construction in the Public Street. DURING CONSTRUCTION 17. Inspection: The contractor must contact Public Works' Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS ACCEPTANCE 18. Storm drain logo: The applicant is required to paint "No Dumping/Flows to San Francisquito Creek" in blue on a white background adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. The name of the creek to which the proposed development drains can be obtained from Public Works Engineering. Stencils· of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. 19. Indermite encroachment permit: An· approved indefinite encroachment permit will be required for private infrastructure constructed in the public right-of-way, easement or on property in which the City holds an interest, but that was not authorized by a building permit. Additional comments and/or conditions may apply as the project is revised. Page 60f17 ATTACHMENTC SOLID~ASTE ______________________________________________ _ The following issues must be· addressed in building plans prior to final approval by this department: General Comments: • The size of the residential enclosure should accommodate a 64-gallon garbage cart, a 96- gallon recycling cart, and a 32-gallon green cart. The commercial enclosure can be reduced in size by replacing the 2-yard recycling bin with two 96-gallon recycling carts. • Push service may be required to deliver bins and carts to the curb for pick up PAMC 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling (A) Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. (B) Requirements: (i) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the property. (ii) Recycling facilities shall be located, sized, and designed to encourage and facilitate convenient use. (iii) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be screened fronl public view by masonry or other opaque and durable material, and shall be enclosed and covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided where feasible. Chain link enclosures are strongly discouraged. (iv) Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be architecturally compatible with the design of the project. (v) 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 Section 18.76.020. P AMC 5.20.120 Recycling storage design requirements The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or expanded building or other facility shall provide for proper storage, handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the solid waste and recyclable materials loading anticipated and which will allow for the efficient and safe collection. The design shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 18.22.100, 18'.24.100, 18.26.100, 18.32.080, 18.37.080, 18.41.080, 18.43.080, 18.45.080, 18.49.140, 18.55.080,18.60.080, and 18.68.170 of Title 18 of this code. All Services: 1. Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance, street width and turnaround space) and street parking are common issues pertaining to new developments. Adequate space must be provided for vehicle access. 2. Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed by the solid waste vehicles (roads, driveways, pads) must be rated to 60,000 lbs. This includes areas where permeable pavement is used. 3. Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or charges will apply. Page 70f17 ATTACHMENTC 4. Carts and bins must be able to roll without obstacles or curbs to reach service areas "no jumping curbs" Garbage, Recycling, and Yard Waste/Compostables cartlbin location and sizing Office Building The pr.oposed commercial development must follow the requirements for recycling container space!. Project plans must show the placement of recycling containers, for example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. Collection space should be provided for built-in recycling containers/storage on each floor/office or alcoves for the placement of recycling containers. • Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams - garbage, recycling, and compostables. • Collection cannot be performed in underground. Underground bins locations require a minimum of 77" of vertical clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push services are not av~ilable (e.g., hauler driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the property owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible location for collection. • All service areas must have a clearance height of 20' for bin service. • New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce ware and tear on walls. For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables collection issues, contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a bin/dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams (garbage, recycling, and yard waste/compostables) and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2) 1. Newly constructed and remodeled Food Service Establishments (FSEs) shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats~ oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. 2. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. 3. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a Grease Control Device (GCD). 4. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. 1 In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles 1 and 2 Page 8 of17 ATTACHMENT C 5. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement. It is frequently to the FSE's advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for'more efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning, There· are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal). The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects. PAMC 5.24.030 Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) Covered projects shall comply with construction and demolition debris diversion rates and other requirements established in Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building Code). In addition, all debris generated by a covered project must haul 1 00 percent of the debris not salvaged for reuse to an approved facility as set forth in this chapter. Contact the City of Palo Alto's Green Building Coordinator for assistance on how to recycle construction and demolition debris from the project, including information on where to conveniently recycle the material. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ------------------------------------------ Please note the following issues must be addressed in building plans prior to final approval by this department: PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both would· improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (16~09.040(m» are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a nlinimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered are8; for a dumpster. The area Page 9 of 17 ATTACHMENT C shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks (i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. P AMC 16.09.180(b )(5) Condensate from HV AC Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. U ndesignated Retail Space: PAMC 16.09 Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. BUILDING ______________________________________________________________________________ _ 1. Sheet A2.l (dated 7-17-2013): The exit passageway (Stair #3) along Grid Line(GL) A is currently opening at a location slightly passed GL 4. This isstill being in the garage which is Page 10 of 17 ATTACHMENT C exit access component of means of egress. The exit passageway needs to continue further and open at exit discharge (OL 2). 2. Sheets A2.l, A2.3, A2.4 (dated 7-17-2013): Openings along GL G have only S feet fire separation distance. The need to be addressed in accordance with Section 70S of CBC. 3. Sheets A2.l, A2.2, A2.3, A2.4 (dated 7-17-2013): Openings along GL A and GL B need to be addressed in accordance with Section 70S ofCBC. 4. Sheet L 1.0 (Roofplan): It is not clear who will have access to this roof. If this will be available to office staff on the second floor, then it may be treated as assembly area . . Currently Stair # 2 is giving that access to all the levels below. S. SheetA2.3: Bedroom located on the comer of GL G and GL 6 is located somehow that is not complying with Section 1029 6. Sheets A2.l through A2.4: Exterior wall openings facing GL 7 need to be addressed in accordance with Section 70S of CBC. UTILITIES -ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING -------------------------------- GENERAL 1. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 3. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been· disconnected and removed. THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE 1. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 2. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. Page 11 of 17 ATTACHMENT C 3. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 4. This project requires a padmount transformer. The location of the transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below). 5. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 6. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer's switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations # 16 & #18. 7. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 8. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur hetween the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 9. F or services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility's padmount transformer and the customer's main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 10. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 11. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 12. If the customer's tota110ad exceeds 2500 kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. 13. For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned an maintained by the City, installed at the customer's expense. The customer Page 12 of 17 ATTACHMENTC must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. 14. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 15. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer's expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. DURING CONSTRUCTION 1. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 2. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 3. The customer is responsible for installing all on-sitersubstructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no 112 inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer's expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 4. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 5. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 6. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code and the City Standards. 7. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. Page 13 of 17 ATTACHMENT C 8. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA "94303 9. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 10. All new underground electric servic"es shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 1. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDINGOCCUP ANCY PERMIT 1. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 2. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 3. All fees must be paid. 4. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. WATER-GAS-WASTEWATERENGINEERING __________ _ PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 1. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT Page 14 of 17 ATTACHMENT C 1 The applicant shall submit completed water-gas.;.wastewater service connection applications -load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities for each unit or place of business. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combinedltotalloads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 2 The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral. installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. WaterlFire/lrrigation services are limited to 2", 4", and 6" (don't use 1 or 1-1/2" services). Water meters are limited to 5/8", I", 1-1/2" and 2" (no~" meters). 4. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (I.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 5. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 6. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of public water, gas and wastewater utilities improvement plans (the portion to be owned and maintained by the City) in accordance with the-utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures (see last condition). For projects that take more than one month to complete, the applicant shall provide progress-record drawings of work completed on a monthly basis. 7. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPP A backflow preventer device) is Page 15 of 17 ATTACHMENTC required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPP A shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA's for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPP Aon the plans. 8. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the . fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU's approval). reduced pressure detector asserrlblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5' of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 9. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 10. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant's expense. 11. Existing water services (including fire services) that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant's expense. 12. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility servicels or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 13. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 14. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape for landscaping areas in excess of 1,500 SF (including tree canopies). Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 15. The gas meter location must meet the WGW Utility Standards. The City of Palo Alto normal service pressure is 7" WC (.25 PSI). Increased pressure must be requested in writing and is only provided if the houseline size calculates out at greater than 2" diameter for domestic (note: domestic can only be increased to 14" WC max.) and greater thal14" diameter for commercial at standard house line pressure (7" WC) or the appliance requires increased pressure at the inlet. Further, due to meter limitations there must a minimum of 800 CFH demand for pressures greater than 14" WC. The only available pressure increments above 7" WC are 14" WC (1/2 psi), 1#, 2# and 5# after approval. Pressures in excess of 14" WC, will require testing the house Page 16bf 17 ATTACHMENT C piping at not less than 60 psig for not less than 30 minutes per the California Plumbing Code section 1204.3.2, witnessed by Palo Alto Building Inspection. The City of Palo Alto will not provide increased pressure just to save contractor money on the houseline construction. Requests to increase the pressure will be evaluated with the following submittals: The manufacturer's literature for the equipment requiring increased pressure; the specific pressure you are requesting; the'gas load; and the length of house gas piping from the gas meter to where the gas houseline starts branching off. 16. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilties procedures. 17. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM. flow to sewer~ 18. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: • The pump(s) shall be limited to a total 1 00 GPM capacity or • The sewage line changes to a 4" gravity flow line at least 20' from the City clean out. • The tank and float is set up such. that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. 19. Utility vaults, transformers,. utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placedover existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain l' horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaultslbases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10' or existing trees. Maintain 10' between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 20. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. Page 17 of 17 July 26th, 2013 City of Palo Alto ATIACHMENT D Received JUL 29 2013 & ~artme!lt of Planning muntty Environment Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5t11 floor Palo Alto,CA 94303 Re: 636 Wavertey Street ARB Major Review Project Description 06.29.13 Permit Risubmlttal To Planning Staff and ARB Members: Attached is Hayes Group Architect's submittal package for 636 Waverley Street for ARB major review. The project applicant is Hayes Group. Architects on behalf of the owner,Waverley Residential LLC. This package includes 12 sets of half size drawings and two full size drawings including the site survey, contextual photos, the proposed site plan, floor plans, elevations, sections, details, 3D views, civil and -landscape drawings. A color rendering will be provided for the ARB major hearing. An ARB preliminary package was submitted on November 7th, 2012. ARB members generally supported the conceptual project during a hearing on November 15th 2012 with comments. Changes made since the hearing to address these comments are explained below. 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is located at mid-block on the southwest side of Waverley Street between Hamilton and Forest Avenues. The existing building at 636 Waverley Is a one-story office building and is approximately 1,406 SF. This building is currently used as office and personal service space. The site is surrounded by commercial and residential buildings. A one-story commercial building is to the south of the site. At the north side is a two-story residential·building. To the west side of the site is city owned parking lot. 2. PROPOSED PROJECT We propose to demolish the existing building and build a new 10.528 SF, four-story, commercial I residential mixed-use building with tuck-under parking. The first and second floor will be entirely commercial. The entire third and fourth floors will be residential. The design creates a dramatic, modern form expressing the program and circulation elements of the building. The building's program is expressed by the vertical and horizontal zigzag of the concrete structural frame as it rises to the roof. Within the structure on the first and second floors, large structural glazed windows open the interior commercial space to Cowper Street and engage the pedestrian environment. As the form continues to draw one's attention higher, the large, third and fourth floor residential roof terraces are defined by the concrete structural frame .. Finally, at the roof, the structural frame is revealed as a floating horizontal plane providing protection for the roof terrace below. 2657 Spring Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 Phone 650.365.0600 Fax 650.365.0670 thehayesgroup.com Architecture and Interiors ,'The entrance to the ground floor lobby is shaped by another concrete struCtu'ral,frame that rises' to , ,the roof to ,enclose the vertical circulation.' Clear glass within the frame of the 'structure 'reveals the stair inside~ , ,,' , ' .,' , The'rooris covered with photovoltaic panels arid ~ roofgardEm for the uppe'r residential unit , Maierialsinclude smooth exposed concrete,.structural glazed windowsystems~withanodized " aluminum frames, and ,clear glass guardrails with,stair'iiess ste,el rails. All glazing is Clear insulated ' , low-e glass. ' , 3. PARKING & BICYCLE SPACES , " , ... . , The parcel is within, the downtown parking, ~ssessment ~istrict.Currently the site has fIVe parking spaces serving the existing '1,40'6' SF building. In accordance with the 'assessment district re'quirements, one parkihgspace is 'required for 250' SF. of new commercial area and 2 spac~s for ' each residential urilt A total, 'of 21 parking spaces are being provided, in parking lifts in 'a partially underground g'arage. Pursuant to PAMC 18.S2'.050 tabl~ 4, we are using a ,rnl)(ed-useparking , reduction allowed by the director, of1.6 spaces for' our j:;arklng' analysis. ' Pursuant to the direCtor's , request, we have included another parking analysis by T JKM TransportatiorrConsultants to confirm then3quested reductioil~' Their'ietteralso calculates 21 parking spaces required for the mixed-use, 'project',See the Area and Parking,Calculationson,the,cover page of the drawings and the ,letter from TJKM TranspoftationConsultants. ' Bicycle, parking is 'provided for both the residenfis'l and 'commercial areas and' ~orisists of two long , 'term and 'one short-term. spaces' for· the residential' units' and one long..:terrri arid' one short-term spaces, for the commercial portion. 4. TRASH/RECYCLING , Anewr covered trash and recyclingfa,clllty will be constructed within the fuck-underparkinggarage, ,acce$sedfrom the'Waverley Street driveway ramp. ' , '5. GREEN BUILDING STANDARD , In accordarice with the city's Green Building Ordinance, the building will satisfy requirements for project Type 1. requiring tEEO Silver rating. The project will complywiththe stricter Tier II, , ' requirements. The, residential ,portion 'shall, comply with' multi family Bulld-it-Green requirements. ' Key elements of the building inclu,de photovoltaic panels,a large area of plant~d'green roof, a high , efficiency mechanical system,and extensive natural light throughalllhterior spaces. The owner also 'plansloreuse a.substantlal,portlon ofthe redwood from the existing building into the new,'residential units. ,', , . , . ... ." . We'look forward to a staff reView and scheduling pfan ARB hearing so that we can proceed with the development of this project. ' " . Please calf meat (65O')365-06O'O'x15 if you have any 'questions. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AlA , Principal cc: David Kleimim, Waverly ,Residential LLC, ~"".··I ..... _Vi_llion_That __ Moves __ You_r_Com_m_U_n_ity __________ A_TT_A_CH_M_·_EN_T_E _______ _ Transportatio.n ConsultantS May 21,2013 Mr. David Kleiman, Manager Waverley Residential LLC 333 High Street Palo Alto, CA 9430 I Email: dkleiman@d2realt;y.com (sent through emai1 only) Subject: 636 Waverley Street Parking Evaluation Dear David, The purpose of the letter report is to present the findings of a parking evaluation for the proposed 636.Waverley Street project in Palo Alto. The proposed project would replace the existing building with 5,050 square feet of office space and two residential dwelling units. Parking Analysis Based on conversation with City staff, 1 TJKM has completed the estimate of peak parking generation forthe proposed site based on the Palo Alto's Municipal Code with time of day information from the Parking Generation, Fourth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (lTE). According to the City code, office use should provide one parking space per 250 square feet and residential units (3 bedroom units) should provide 2 spaces per unit. This would mean parking requirement for the proposed office is 20.5 spaces (5,050 sf/250sf) and four spaces for the two residential. . However, it was noted in ITE that office and residential land use peak at different times of the day. The ITE information showed that office use peak at 10 a.m. which also showed that the residential . land use at that time with parking occupancy of 32 percent. The different peak parking demand for the two land uses provide opportunities for shared parking. The resulting parking demand is approximately 21 spaces as shown in Table I. Note that use of shared parking concept generally precludes reservation of parking spaces for residential land use. The ITE parking time of day information are contained in Appendix A. . Table 1-Estimated Parking Generation "I" Total tand Use Types IJPn;Jpose Uilits -, Parkinl :r Parkins Rates Required Office 5,050 square feet 250 20.20 Dwelling Units 2 dwelling unit 0.64 1.28 Total 21.48 In addition, due to its close proximity to transit and the Caltrain Station, there is some opportunity for trip reductions. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Transportation Impact Analyses guideline states opportunity for up to nine percent trip reduction. Conclusion Since the project proposes to provide 2 I parking spaces, the projected parking demand would be accommodated adequately. ' I Rius, Rafael May 16,2013 If there are any questions about this report, please contact me at (925) 463-061 I or email at cthnay@tjkm.com. Very truly yours, ~ Christopher Thnay, PE, AICP Director of Planning & Complete Streets j:\jURlSDIUION\P\Palo Alto\042-041 636 Waverly Parking\Report\LR 052103 636 Waverley.docx VISion That MowdI Your COm ...... nitr Appendix A -ITfTime of Doy Parking Information Land .Use: 701 Office Building As noted, peak parking demand rates were different between sites located in suburban settings and those located in urban setttngs for the independent variable 1,000 sq. ft. GFA. The individual site surveys did not enable a quantitative explanation of the factors that caused the difference. One potential explanation may relate to differences in the availability of alternative modes (for example, transit, bike and pedestrian) available at the urban sites. Of the studies with data on transit availability and presence of a transportation demand management (TOM) program, the suburban sites reported about 55 percent with available transit services and 20 percent with TOM programs. The urban sites reported almost 100 percent with available transit and 63 percent with TOM programs of some form . . Weekend parking demand data were available at two stl:Jdy sites. At one site, the Saturday peak demand . was less than 1 ° percent of peak weekday demand at the same site. At the other site, the Saturday and Sunday demand approached 90 percent of the weekday peak demand for the same site. It was not possible to derive reliable weekend parking demand rates due to lack of information on the nature of work conducted during the weekend at the two sites. The following table presents the tirrie-of-day dis'tributions of parking demand variation for suburban and urban sites. The only sites included in the table data were those that submitted at least four consecutive hours of parking demand observations. (Note: the majority of the parking demand data in the overall database consisted of one or two hourly observations.) ~ d on Vehicles pee • )',;}: ~, . i· ':;, ";~),'; Wi ~fP.." {lmln Yc'.~:~ Weekday. Suburban 1,oao~q.,.ft6PA '.' . ,~;, ..... "'.,,, 7 '-.. '.'" . ,.". . Percent of Pelik ~umber of D~ta .' Percttnf of Peak Nu'mber of Data " Hour Beginning . PerIOd .. ' pOI",ts,-: P.eriod· ' . .... , .. P9iot8~",.,·",:~.· 12:00-4:00 a.m. -0 -0 5:00 a.m. -0 -0 6:00 a.m. -0 -0 7:00 a.m. 59 1 19 2 8:00 a.m. 79 10 64 4 9:00 a.m. 95 12 91 5 10:00 a.m. 100 12 99 5 11:00 a.m. 98 12 99 5 12:00p.m. 90 12 98 5 1:00p.m. 77 7 96 5 2:00 p.m. 84 7 100 5 3:00p.m. 81 6 99 5 4:00 p.m. 72 6 90 5 5:00p.m. 46 6 58 3 6:00 p.m. 25 1 -0 7:00 p.m. -0 -0 8:00 p.m. -0 -0 9:00 p.m. -0 -0 10:00 p.m. -0 -0 11:00 p.m. -0 -0 * Subset of database institute of Transportati;;;;ngln':'::' ~ [.20~.!.. . / Parking Generation, 4th Edition Description Land Use: 224 Rental Townhouse Rental townhouses are townhouse developments with rented rather than owned units and a minimum of two attached units per building structure. Units are not stacked on top of one another. Database Description • Average parking supply ratio: 1.7 parking spaces per dwelling unit (three study sites). For one of the study sites, parking demand was compiled for 24 consecutive hours on a weekday, Saturday and Sunday. The following table presents the time-of-day distribution of parking demand at the site: 5:00 a.m. 100 1 100 1 99 1 6:00 a.m. 84 1 98 1 98 1 7:00 a,m. 62 1 94 1 96 1 8:00 a.m. 41 1 89 1 94 1 9:00 a.m. 34 1 59 1 89 1 10:00 a.m. . 32 1 71 1 85 1 11 :00 a.m. 31 1 67 1 78 1 12:00 p.m. 30 1 66 1 72 1 1:00 p.m. 31 1 64 1 73 1 2:00 p.m. 33 1 64 1 72 1 3:00 p.m. 37 1 69 1 . 73 1 4:00 p.m. 45 1 73 1 75 1 5:00 p.m. 61 1 78 1 83 1 6:00 p.m. 69 1 80 1 89 1 7:00 p.m. 72 1 83 1 93 1 8:00 p.m. 80 1 84 1 95 1 9:00 p.m. 89 1 87 1 100 1 10:00 p.m. 92 1 89 1 98 1 11 :00 p.m. 94 1 95 1 . 100 1 * Subset of database Study SiteslY ears Canada: Brooks, AB (1998) United States: Howard County, MD (1989); Middletown, NJ (2001); New Brunswick, NJ (2001) 4th Edition Source Number 1114 Institute of Transportation Engineers [58 ] Parking Generation, 4th Edition ATTACHMENTF ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE 636 Waverley Street [13PLN-00262] CD-CZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD PROPOSED STANDARDS PROJECT Lot Size None 5,278 sf Minimum Building Setback Front Yard N one Required None Rear Yard 10' for residential portion 10'-1" Interior Side Yards None Required 6" Maximum Site Coverage None Required 4,752 sf(90%) (building footprint) Maximum Height 50' 50' Daylight Plane Same as abutting residential Not Applicable zones Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.0:1 = 10,556 sf Residential: 5,478 sf Commercial: 5,050 sf Landscape Open Space 20% > 1,055 sf 1,055 sf Usable Open Space 200 sf/living unit > 200 sf/unit Parking Requirement 24 spaces 21 spaces (within the Downtown Parking 1 space/250 sf commercial area Assessment District) 2 spaces/living unit Bicycle Parking 4 spaces Long Term: 4 1 space/commercial 2,500 sf=:: 2 Short Term: 2 1 spacelliving unit = 2 *Parking summary: Required spaces before adjustments 24 spaces Shared Parking Facilities Reduction 11 % -2.64 Required spaces after ad.iustments 21.36 spaces CONFORMS ! Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes I Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes* Yes Page 1 of 1