Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-17 Planning & Transportation Commission Summary Minutes Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Summary Minutes: December 17, 2024 2 Council Chambers & Virtual 3 6:00 PM 4 5 Call to Order / Roll Call 6 6:00 PM 7 Chair Chang called the December 17, 2024, special meeting of the Planning and Transportation 8 Commission to order. 9 Ms. Tran conducted the roll call and declared there was a quorum. Commissioner Summa was 10 absent. 11 12 Oral Communications 13 There were no requests to speak on non-agenda items. 14 15 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 16 There were no changes to the agenda. 17 18 City Official Reports 19 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule, and Assignments 20 Assistant Director Jennifer Armer provided an update on upcoming meetings, with a PTC special 21 meeting on January 15 and the usual PTC meeting on January 29, 2025. The Council meeting on 22 January 21 will include some Housing Element Implementation Ordinance changes 23 recommended by the PTC. Staff has organized a community meeting and outreach for the 24 Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance on February 6 at City Hall. 25 There were no updates from Transportation. 26 Commissioner Templeton was unsure she would be available on January 15 and requested Staff 27 reach out to her if there was not going to be a quorum. 28 There was discussion about the requirements for a quorum. 29 30 Action Items 1 2. Recommendation on an Ordinance Implementing Programs 3.3A, B, and D and 2 3.4A-D of the Housing Element, Including Modifications to: 1) Chapter 18.14: 3 Housing Incentives to Update Regulations for the Affordable Housing Incentive 4 Program (AHIP) and Housing Incentive Program (HIP); 2) Section 18.40.180: Retail 5 Preservation; and 3) Modifications to Base Zoning Districts Throughout Title 18. The 6 Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), 7 considered by the City Council on April 15, 2024, analyzed potential environmental 8 impacts of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element including Programs 3.3 and 3.4. 9 (Continued from December 11, 2024) 10 Jean Eisberg, Consultant, explained the Housing Incentive Program (HIP) provides an 11 opportunity for relaxed development standards for market-rate projects in exchange for 12 processing through Architectural Review and the Affordable Housing Incentive Program (AHIP) 13 provides relaxed development standards for affordable projects up to middle-income levels in 14 commercial districts near transit in exchange for processing through Architectural Review. The 15 Housing Element Program 3.4 (HIP) calls for streamlining of the approval process, modifying 16 retail preservation ordinance requirements, expanding the applicability to several new zoning 17 districts, and modifying zoning standards to enable greater housing production. Program 3.3 18 (AHIP) calls for very specific changes to the zoning requirements for FAR, building heights, and 19 parking ratios, and expands applicability to all Housing Element Opportunity Sites. She reviewed 20 previous feedback and discussed the key changes to the HIP. The Housing Element sets up two 21 separate thresholds. A site in the same zoning district may have different standards depending 22 on whether or not it is a Housing Opportunity Site. In the commercial mixed-use districts, the 23 HIP adds an increment over and above what the base zoning currently allows. Layering the HIP 24 on a Housing Opportunity Site will have potentially more yield than a site that does not have 25 the opportunity site designation. 26 Jean Eisberg continued, explaining that with this program the Downtown and California Avenue 27 areas that have the GF and R overlay designations would continue to be subject to the Retail 28 Preservation Ordinance, as would the El Camino Real nodes. The current code allowing reduced 29 retail preservation for high-density and residential mixed-use projects would be retained, 30 except in the locations of the overlays and the El Camino nodes. Exempt from the RPO are 31 100% affordable projects as well as Housing Opportunity Sites. Staff asked that PTC consider if 32 the AHIP should be expanded to include all of the locations eligible for the HIP, which would 33 mean additional commercial corridors and not just the Housing Element Opportunity Sites, and 34 also if the ordinance should incorporate any of the ARB's alternate recommendations. 35 Vice-Chair Reckdahl clarified that a Housing Element Opportunity Site in the focus nodes would 36 still allow no retail, so there would not be a lot of forced retail and it could be almost entirely 37 residential. 38 Jean Eisberg specified that the language requires a Housing Opportunity Site taking advantage 1 of the HIP and exceeding the realistic capacity identified in the Housing Element to do retail if 2 there is a retail requirement in the base zoning as a way to generate the ground-floor retail 3 since it cannot be required. 4 Commissioner Akin questioned the rationale for using the average of household incomes rather 5 than a single maximum. He asked what defines the 120% upper limit. He was curious why it was 6 not simply changed to 100% given that the average would be the same. The way it is written 7 now, the distribution will be different, and it is hard to predict the effect of that. 8 Jean Eisberg responded that the AHIP program is written that the income levels can go up to 9 120% of AMI. In an effort to provide a more distributed range of income levels, the average is 10 used so that all units could not be at 120%, which is taken from the existing code. 11 Assistant City Attorney Albert Yang added that the benefit of using an average is that it allows 12 more flexibility for different types of projects to come in. 13 Chair Chang asked how Staff arrived at the threshold of 10% of units being 3-bedrooms for the 14 incentive and also how 1500 square feet for retail was arrived at. 15 Jean Eisberg explained there was a quantitative and qualitative analysis of 8 projects in the City 16 and the distribution of unit sizes. Of those multifamily projects, only 2 projects exceeded 10% 17 with 3 bedrooms. Speaking to developers and architects about how they design and distribute 18 units, Staff learned that 3-bedroom units tend to be at the corners of buildings because 19 windows are needed on both sides to provide light. Therefore, it is harder to get those units 20 into the middle of the building, so 10% was seen as an achievable goal that would not be too 21 high and disqualify projects. The 1500 square feet is also an existing standard and is also the 22 existing standard where the City allows certain exemptions from parking. It can accommodate 23 more than just a small retail space but can fit in a building footprint in a lobby area without 24 potentially generating a parking requirement. 25 PUBLIC COMMENTS 26 Amy Ashton, Executive Director of Palo Alto Forward, stated changes need to be made to the 27 zoning ordinance to facilitate feasible housing projects. The incentive programs for HIP and 28 AHIP need to be far superior to the state density bonus for any homebuilder to even consider 29 using them. She urged the Commission to extend HIP and AHIP to other areas and zones, 30 remove density standards, consider removing floor area ratios, reduce parking requirements, 31 and allow 5 feet of additional height to facilitate projects with ground-floor commercial uses. 32 She noted Palo Alto Forward was able to get 120 signatures in 4 days in support of these 33 changes. 34 Commissioner Lu asked about the overlap between the HIP/AHIP and the El Camino Focus Area. 35 He questioned the extent to which the El Camino Focus Area was a separate overlay that likely 36 would not be affected by any changes to the HIP. 37 Jean Eisberg noted the draft ordinance tries to better distinguish the HIP and AHIP. The way it is 1 today, the HIP is written into two sections of the zoning ordinance related to downtown and 2 the commercial corridors, with a set of standards that apply for a market-rate project and a 3 different set of standards that apply if for an affordable project. The distinction in the draft 4 ordinance is that HIP applies to market-rate projects and AHIP applies to affordable projects. 5 Some of those sites within the El Camino Focus Area may be eligible for and choose to do the 6 HIP but would not get as generous a set of development standards. The El Camino Focus Area 7 requires on-site affordable housing; the HIP does not. The HIP requires meeting the City's 8 inclusionary requirement, which in the case of rental projects can be done with an in-lieu fee. 9 Commissioner Lu asked if there was any clear Council direction for the HIP to potentially apply 10 to the El Camino Focus Area or for the El Camino Focus Area to stand alone. He questioned how 11 much more permissive the ARB's recommendation to eliminate maximum FAR would be. 12 Jean Eisberg explained the City generally does not regulate residential density dwelling units an 13 acre, particularly in the commercial zones. Without residential density or FAR, it is the other 14 standards that set the development envelope, the height, lot coverage, setbacks. She was 15 unable to say what may happen if FAR is reduced or eliminated. 16 Commissioner Akin appreciated the virtue of using the average number because it makes the 17 financials more predictable but felt it would make other things like the waitlist policy less 18 predictable. He was also concerned that using the HUD 30% rule would result in rents that are 19 already very close to the market rate and that allowing any number of households at 120% of 20 AMI reduces the number of households that can move in at below market rate even though the 21 average is still about 100%. He recommended setting a maximum rather than using the 22 average. 23 Chair Chang asked if the average affordability would be implemented as an average across the 24 number of units. She wondered if it was possible to make an average based on square feet as 25 often very small apartments can be considered below market rate based on location, size, etc. 26 when they are actually essentially market rate. She questioned whether each unit would be 27 specified as deed restricted at a particular affordability level so that the averaging happens at 28 the time the development is designed rather than the rental to each successive tenant. She 29 foresaw challenges with implementation and questioned if developers are allowed to say a unit 30 is 87% affordable rather than 100% in order to get the math to work out. 31 Albert Yang responded the average would be based on units and unit type, most likely number 32 of bedrooms per unit. He noted it was possible to weight the average by square feet. He 33 concurred that averaging would be done up front at the permitting stage and each unit would 34 have a certain affordability level set. He believed guidelines would be created for the 35 affordability levels. 36 Jennifer Armer added that affordable housing projects generally specify the affordability level 37 of the units proposed and identify which units are affordable at different levels to ensure it is 38 distributed through the project. That leads into the deed restrictions that are implemented 39 prior building final and final inspection for those units. There is likely some flexibility on what 1 exact percentages they use for those deed restrictions, but Staff makes sure that in the end the 2 average works out. 3 Commissioner Hechtman thought it was preferable to be overly generous at first to see how 4 the market reacts as if there were too many applications, the ordinance could be adjusted to 5 find the right balance in the long run. He was supportive of the ARB recommendations but 6 unsure about the parking requirements. He suggested thinking about what incentives Palo Alto 7 might offer that other cities do not, in order to bring the developments to Palo Alto. 8 Vice-Chair Reckdahl agreed with Commissioner Hechtman in leaning toward being more 9 generous to encourage more housing. He asked what the downside of expanding AHIP to all 10 locations was. He felt 1500 square feet for retail seemed rather small for the size of some 11 parcels. 12 Jean Eisberg noted the AHIP program was only for projects that are 100% affordable up to 13 120% of AMI, mostly nonprofit developers. She did not see any downsides and explained it was 14 a change in the purpose of the program, which was originally intended for sites near transit. 15 She thought it was consistent with the Housing Element to encourage housing production and 16 affordability. She reiterated that the 1500 square feet is an existing standard that was not 17 changed. There was discussion about this. She explained the reduced requirement could be 18 thought of in different ways, such as a percentage requirement. 19 Vice-Chair Reckdahl wanted the requirement to be reasonable for someone to convert to 20 housing but without throwing away retail. 21 Jean Eisberg explained this was in the Retail Preservation Ordinance. The code may still require 22 retail in certain zoning districts, and that is not affected by any of the proposed changes. If 23 there is already a minimum ground-floor retail requirement, that remains. This is more about 24 what happens when there is existing retail on a site. 25 Jennifer Armer pointed out that the changes to the section talking about the 1500 square feet 26 are actually adding that it would not apply to sites on the El Camino Real Retail Node areas, so 27 those areas are being protected further. The exemption for minimum vehicle parking 28 requirements for retail or retail-like floor area were added since there is seen to be less need 29 for parking in a mixed-use project. 30 Chair Chang was supportive the proposal. She was concerned about the 10% threshold for 3-31 bedroom units. She was comfortable with the average affordability as listed on packet page 32 125, but noted that phrase was also referred to in a number of other areas, including as it 33 relates to exemption from the Retail Protection Ordinance. Her third area of concern was the 34 retail. Retail is thriving all along El Camino, presumably because of lower rents. Some 35 businesses are very well frequented, and she felt those would go away with this incentive. She 36 also believed there were not enough nodes currently in the plan and wondered how difficult it 37 would be to modify the retail nodes. 38 Jean Eisberg explained the map could be modified based on input from the Commission. She 1 clarified that not all of El Camino is required to have ground-floor retail today but it is required 2 to be replaced if there is retail there now. She felt it would be very difficult to get mixed-use 3 residential over retail along the entire length of El Camino. 4 Commissioner Templeton asked for clarification on whether Staff was asking the Commission to 5 look at the rules for areas deemed to be part of the program or to determine what the areas 6 participating in the program should be. She asked what needed to be resolved tonight. 7 Jean Eisberg discussed that the program says the retail preservation requirement should be 8 waived for Opportunity Sites and says to reduce retail replacement requirements elsewhere 9 except in some specific locations (Downtown, GF overlay, Cal Ave). The area that is most open 10 is the nodes along El Camino. Otherwise the direction is clear from the program. 11 Chair Chang did not want to hold up the process but wanted more discussion on the nodes 12 before supporting this. 13 Jennifer Armer suggested identifying things in the ordinance that should be tweaked or 14 changed. She noted the Commission was making a recommendation, which could include a 15 recommendation that Council direct Staff to come back with a revision to the map that includes 16 additional nodes on El Camino Real. 17 Commissioner Templeton liked the suggestion about getting the where more refined but 18 wanted to get the how through tonight. 19 Commissioner Lu agreed with the suggestion to move forward tonight with direction to come 20 back on retail. He thought the nodes were difficult to define. He believed the HIP should be 21 expanded to other sites for more affordable housing in more places. He was interested in 22 following the ARB's recommendation to eliminate FAR but was unsure whether there would 23 actually be a meaningful amount of more housing. He recommended Staff doing preliminary 24 analysis if that was moved forward. He was supportive of an extra 5 feet and reduced parking 25 ratios as recommended by ARB. 26 Commissioner Akin believed expanding AHIP to all HIP sites was the right thing to do. With 27 regard to the ARB's recommendations, he felt Staff's responses looked right. He supported the 28 extra 5 feet and was open to eliminating the maximum FAR but felt both required attention 29 from Staff before he was confident. Parking was the only one of the ARB recommendations that 30 he wanted to push back on. 31 Commissioner Hechtman supported expanding the AHIP as proposed. He also supported the 32 ARB's 5 feet of additional height. He was open to the opportunity to reduce parking 33 requirements for sites that can demonstrate to some objective standard that they are not going 34 to need that level of parking, rather than baking it in as an incentive across the board. In terms 35 of the density standards, he liked the concept of protecting against micro unit developments by 36 activating no FAR only when providing 10% three-bedroom-plus units. He wanted to get the 1 ordinance in place and see how the market reacts. 2 Vice-Chair Reckdahl asked if unlimited residential density was unlimited FAR or unlimited units 3 per acre. 4 Ms. Eisberg responded that it was unlimited units per acre and would only apply in the RM zone 5 because other zones do not regulate residential density. 6 Vice-Chair Reckdahl wanted to consider giving an FAR bonus in other zones because a lot of the 7 Opportunity Sites are not RM zoned. He thought AHIP should be expanded to all HIP sites. He 8 was inclined to do the ARB's FAR recommendation but wanted Staff to have more confidence 9 that there were not side effects. He felt 5 feet of height seemed reasonable. He did not support 10 parking ratios at this time unless there was an effective way to limit parking. 11 Chair Chang aligned with Commissioner Akin and Vice-Chair Reckdahl. She thought that where 12 Staff arrived with respect to the ARB comments was the right place. She was open to FAR and 13 the 5 feet but held firm on parking for now. She also agreed that AHIP should apply to 14 everywhere that HIP applies. She wanted to see some changes with respect to the retail 15 changes. She asked if the Retail Protection Ordinance could be waived via density bonus. 16 Albert Yang did not have a clear answer on waiving the RPO. 17 Chair Chang felt with more clarification, the 100% average should be extended to 4A to be 18 consistent throughout. She noted the different affordability averages were confusing and 19 requested a chart. She asked for clarification on what is in place now and what each of the 20 exemptions are. 21 Jean Eisberg explained that subsection A says 100% affordable projects up to 120% of AMI 22 (moderate income) are exempt unless they are within the GF, R, or the El Camino Nodes. 23 Subsection B says that the exemption only applies to 100% affordable projects at a deeper level 24 of affordability, up to 80% of AMI, but outside the El Camino Nodes. Subsection C is new, an 25 exemption for Housing Element Opportunity Sites listed in the Housing Element. To get around 26 the idea that some of these sites are within those nodes and in locations where the City might 27 want to see retail, a project that exceeds the realistic capacity listed in the Housing Element and 28 is using the HIP program needs to replace that retail. Subsection D is the existing provision that 29 higher-density residential projects exceeding 30 units an acre have a reduced replacement 30 requirement. They only need to replace 1500 square feet and can exempt that replacement 31 from the parking requirement. 32 Chair Chang suggested changing 4A to 120% to match the AHIP and separately suggested using 33 a square foot definition for averaging. 34 There was further discussion on the locations included in A and B with the wording needing 35 possible clarification. 36 Jennifer Armer explained A states 100% affordable housing project not within the Ground Floor 1 and/or Retail combining districts or El Camino Real Node area; whereas B says 100% affordable 2 housing on sites abutting El Camino Real, so both in and outside the nodes. Sites on El Camino 3 Real but not in the nodes have the two options, whereas the nodes are excluded from A and 4 would be using B. 5 Commissioner Templeton suggested cleaning up the language in 4A. She agreed with Chair 6 Chang's request for a chart and asked Staff to produce that for Council. 7 Commissioner Lu agreed a table or chart would be useful. He questioned the wording on 4D, 8 "Shall be required to replace only up to 1500 square feet of an existing retail-like space." He 9 stated "up to" meant developers could by choice do 500 feet of retail, which contradicts the 10 intent. 11 Commissioner Templeton wondered if replace was the significant word in that if there is only 12 500 square feet now, only 500 has to be replaced. 13 Jennifer Armer believed that was the intention and agreed that clarification would be helpful. 14 Commissioner Templeton asked if there was rationale behind the parking recommendation 15 from the ARB. 16 Jean Eisberg noted the ARB's recommendation was to further reduce parking as a way to 17 increase housing production. If every unit does not require parking, more units can fit within a 18 building envelope. It was a way to increase project feasibility and unit yield and to let the 19 market decide. 20 Jennifer Armer confirmed there was no additional data supporting that the changes would 21 make it more likely to get things built. 22 Vice-Chair Reckdahl wanted additional work on an FAR bonus for non-RM and also additional 23 nodes on El Camino. 24 Commissioner Lu noted the Commission was generally supportive of expanding the AHIP and 25 allowing the additional 5 feet. He believed the Commission was supportive of the ARB's 26 suggestion to re-factor the FAR with further Staff input. 27 Chair Chang felt it was best to keep the Staff recommendation as is and add that the 28 Commission would support additional Staff investigation to implement the ARB 29 recommendations. 30 There was detailed discussion about the Staff recommendation and the ARB recommendations. 31 MOTION 32 Vice-Chair Reckdahl moved the Staff recommendation with the additions that the Commission 1 supported expanding AHIP to all HIP-eligible sites and wanted Staff to investigate providing an 2 FAR bonus for non-RM developments with 10% or more 3-bedroom apartments and to propose 3 additional nodes on El Camino within 3 months. 4 5 SECOND 6 Chair Chang seconded the motion. 7 There was further discussion of the wording of the motion. 8 Commissioner Lu asked if there would be a full study that would come back after Staff 9 investigation or a decision Council makes. 10 Vice-Chair Reckdahl confirmed his intent was that the FAR bonus would be decided and AHIP 11 added before this went to Council and the nodes would be worked on with the Director in the 12 next three months. 13 It was clarified that the goal was for this to go to Council in the first quarter of the year. 14 Commissioner Hechtman questioned whether Staff would have time to be able to provide 15 additional information to the Council for these issues. 16 Jean Eisberg explained there was a lot of information about the modeling on the FAR and was 17 comfortable that Staff would be able to provide additional analyses to Council in available 18 timeline. 19 VOTE 20 Ms. Tran conducted a roll call, which carried 6-0. 21 MOTION PASSED 6-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Templeton; Summa absent) 22 Commission Action: Motion by Vice-Chair Reckdahl, seconded by Chair Chang. Motion Passed 23 6-0 (Akin, Chang, Hechtman, Lu, Reckdahl, Templeton; Summa absent). 24 The Commission took a 10-minute break. 25 26 Study Session 27 3. Study Session to Review Potential Amendments to the Regulations for the El Camino 28 Real Focus Area in Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Implement 29 Program 3.4E of the Adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element. Environmental 30 Assessment: On April 15, 2024, Council adopted Resolution No. 10155, approving an 31 Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 32 Commissioner Lu recused himself from this item as he lives close to the El Camino Focus Area. 1 Jean Eisberg provided background on this item, which allows generous development standards 2 in exchange for on-site below-market-rate housing for lower-income households. The program 3 is an alternative to State Density Bonus Law and to the Builder's Remedy. The purpose of this 4 item is to discuss expanding geographic boundaries and revising development standards. She 5 discussed the criteria for geographic expansion, including lot size, lot consolidation 6 opportunities, and Housing Element Opportunity Sites, with sites divided into different tiers for 7 potential inclusion in the Focus Area, recommending to look more closely at Tier 1 and 2 sites. 8 The highest potential areas were around California Avenue and the NVCAP area. She discussed 9 thinking about potential revisions to existing standards within the existing Focus Area, such as 10 the daylight plane and height transition as well as the front stepback standard, and looking at 11 reduced standards in the expanded Focus Area, with interest in having reduced height limits, lot 12 coverage and parking limits remaining the same, and keeping setbacks consistent with general 13 El Camino standards. Staff questions for PTC are which geographic areas the Focus Area should 14 expand to; whether standards should be adjusted for different sections of the Focus Area; if the 15 daylight plan and height transition are acceptable to accommodate higher density development 16 and lower density neighbors; and whether the front stepback standard on El Camino Real 17 should be modified to allow more massing on the El Camino Real frontage. 18 Commissioner Templeton questioned the reasoning for reducing the maximum building height 19 for the expanded Focus Area. 20 Jean Eisberg explained the 85-foot building height came about in the existing Focus Area 21 because of the existing height context. The expanded areas have smaller sites and are further 22 from transit. They may be less appropriate for the tallest height limits, and FAR could be 23 reduced in the same vein. 24 PUBLIC COMMENTS 25 Amy Ashton felt there was a lot of potential in these El Camino Focus Area sites and was excited 26 to see redevelopment here. It is a huge opportunity to get large numbers of units. She wanted 27 to frontload the units on El Camino and to get rid of the stepbacks. Regarding parking, she 28 thought one space per unit was a lot of potential parking and that developers know what they 29 need for parking. Lastly, the setback for residential completely obliterates any development 30 potential for residential on a lot of these sites. 31 Peter Giovannatto supported the City's initiative to designate this section of El Camino Real as a 32 focus are for redevelopment. He felt it was the right direction to address future housing and 33 urban design needs. He was enthusiastic about the possibility of expanding the Focus Area to 34 include both of his family's projects on El Camino Real. 35 Winter Dellenbach noted this was her neighborhood and it was difficult to listen to this 36 discussion. She pointed out that as of September 2024 there were 7 projects in this area 37 amounting to 1363 total dwellings plus 192 hotel rooms, a huge amount of development. She 38 believed the increased traffic would eliminate a Safe Routes to School route in the area of 1 Matadero. She recommended that the four blocks from Matadero to Los Robles not be 2 included in any expansion of the Focus Area. 3 Commissioner Akin noted most of his concerns were to do with development standards, 4 particularly the height transition and daylight plane. 5 Commissioner Hechtman thought there was an opportunity to enlarge the Focus Area by 6 incentivizing assemblage or consolidation, allowing qualification for adjacent parcels that 7 partner for bigger developments. He also suggested expanding the scope of the investigation to 8 see if there might be pockets behind the first row of parcels to have more bulk on the front and 9 use the rear parcel to be the stepdown to R1 behind it. 10 Vice-Chair Reckdahl felt it made sense to shrink the 20-foot front setback to break up the 11 facade. 12 There was discussion about the daylight plane standards. 13 Jean Eisberg clarified that the Staff report suggests either reducing or eliminating the height 14 transition and allowing the daylight plane to regulate. 15 Chair Chang noted this was only relevant if it is next to an R1 zone and that most of the current 16 Focus Area does not abut onto R1. 17 Commissioner Templeton described, as someone who has lived on either side of El Camino, a 18 lot of noise that she felt could be helped by building structures between the thoroughfare and 19 local residences. 20 Chair Chang discussed that essentially for the length of the current El Camino Focus Area, it was 21 pretty narrow, only 100 feet wide. She agreed that a full 20-foot front setback was not needed. 22 She was unsure about the rear setback because it was largely irrelevant for the Focus Area. She 23 noted perhaps standards should be adjusted for different sections of the Focus Area, paying 24 attention to R1-abutting areas. With respect to geographic areas of expansion, there were 25 public comments/letters regarding specific sites requesting to be included and she questioned 26 if Staff had looked at those sites. She was also sensitive to the comment about the four blocks 27 along Barron Park, not wanting to stifle a vibrant, retail-rich area. 28 Jennifer Armer responded that Staff had not had an opportunity to look at the recently received 29 letter in detail and wanted to discuss those points before providing recommendations. As this is 30 a study session, Staff is looking for suggestions and direction but will be coming back based on 31 this discussion and the one with the ARB. 32 Commissioner Akin liked the comprehensive site tiering. He stated one of the issues there was 33 developments that contain parking. He believed if there were impediments to shared parking 34 facilities, particularly in the Tier 2 and 3 areas, those impediments might be worth eliminating. 35 He concluded that standards should absolutely be adjusted for different sections as there is too 36 much variation in the expanded area. He found the height transitions to 35 feet and 85 feet 1 were the ones that matter to the daylight plane and buildable volume. He suggested there was 2 a lot of room in the middle to explore interesting compromises. For example, a 30-degree plane 3 from an R1 is nice compared to an undesirable 60-degree plane and actually offers more 4 buildable volume than the stepbacks that are specified today. 5 There was discussion about the accuracy of the diagram showing daylight plane. In some cases, 6 if a building wall was at the 10-foot setback, it would overlap the daylight plane, but in that 7 case, it would not be built that way. 8 Commissioner Templeton, regarding Staff's questions, felt the standards should be adjusted for 9 different areas, the daylight pane and height transition would accommodate in most cases with 10 some exceptions that would need to be figured out, and the front stepback standards should be 11 modified. She believed the Commission was agreed for Tiers 1 and 2. She noted that someone 12 mentioned concern that Tiers 3 and 4 would destroy retail in those areas and asked if there 13 were any projections on that. 14 Jennifer Armer suggested that gathering more information about existing uses might help. She 15 noted the area discussed was mostly small, shallow sites with R1 adjacencies in Tier 4, not 16 currently part of the recommendation to move forward. 17 Commissioner Templeton felt those sites should be redeveloped at some point but not 18 necessarily included in this Focus Area. She noted the office buildings off of Hansen seemed like 19 an interesting opportunity. She thought there were other issues and opportunities for 20 development prior to Tiers 3 and 4. 21 Commissioner Hechtman was interested to see Staff's feedback regarding the recently received 22 Sandhill letter. He appreciated the comments from a developer who would like to build here. In 23 terms of the four questions, he agreed with Tiers 1 and 2. He wanted to look at any parts of Tier 24 3 that would be appropriate only for required assemblages, such as the island between El 25 Camino Way and El Camino, which has a physical buffer from adjacencies and is quite a 26 distance from any R1. The drawback is its proximity to big transit, but the area bears further 27 examination to see if it should be moved into a Tier 2 category. Different development 28 standards are going to be necessary, but the challenge is how to do it without making rules for 29 every parcel. Regarding modified daylight plane and height transitions, he felt that to the extent 30 something like that shown in the diagram would apply, it is not right and needed to be fixed. He 31 agreed the stepback standard on El Camino should be modified but was unsure of the right 32 number. He mentioned that the 20 feet could possibly provide upstairs open space and was 33 interested in discussing rooftop gardens. 34 Commissioner Templeton did not agree with park space along the most polluted area in the 35 City. 36 Vice-Chair Reckdahl was concerned about the diagram of the daylight plane. He believed it was 1 attractive for those in the R1 zone as it would protect them from being overwhelmed. However, 2 all sites are eligible for a density bonus and could waive the daylight plane altogether. 3 Chair Chang suggested a step-up daylight plane so as to not waste volume. She discussed the 4 public comment regarding the substantial impact on the neighborhood of Barron Park and 5 wanted Staff to think about that. 6 There was further discussion about that area. 7 Vice-Chair Reckdahl felt the idea about assemblage was very good and wanted to encourage 8 that as much as possible. He wanted to ensure having enough setbacks so as not to impede on 9 the bike traffic. 10 Jean Eisberg clarified that the existing Focus Area standard has a 20-foot setback adjacent to an 11 R1 zone. She noted this would be going to the ARB and their input would be sought in particular 12 on the daylight plane and height transitions. 13 14 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 15 Commissioner Hechtman noted that Commissioner Lu had unfortunately left early due to his 16 scheduling and would have appreciated giving him the opportunity for some concluding 17 remarks. He stated Commissioner Lu was a tremendous contributor to the Commission. He also 18 noted Vice-Chair Reckdahl was departing and that his contributions would be missed as well. 19 Vice-Chair Reckdahl thanked the Commission and looked forward to good things coming out of 20 PTC. 21 Chair Chang thanked Vice-Chair Reckdahl and Commissioner Lu for their continuing service to 22 the City. 23 24 ADJOURNMENT 25 9:34 PM 26