HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-06 City Council (10)¯City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:DECEMBER 6, 1999 CMR:427:99
SUBJECT:SOUTH OF FOREST AREA (SOFA) COORDINATED AREA PLAN
REPORT IN BRIEF
The purpose of this report is to forward the recommended SOFA Coordinated Area Plan
(CAP). The staff-recommended CAP includes the vast majority of the planning concepts
proposed by the SOFA Working Group (WG) and various Boards and Commissions. The
Plan includes a wide range of policies and programs that will be applicable to the area and
guide the future development and re-development of properties in SOFA.
The WG fmalized its shared vision for the area in a Draft Plan dated June 9, 1999 that
includes traditional comprehensive plan components as recommended policies, programs and
land use designations. The WG Plan Concept (Attachment A) provides a graphical
representation of the designations proposed and a summary of all of the key WG
recommendations. The key recommendations of the WG Plan were the creation of a 2.5-acre
park, a 1- to 1.5-acre affordable housing site, the conversion of Homer and Channing
Avenues to two-way traffic flow and the creation of two new land use designations:
Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS), Attached Multiple Family (AMF), Moderate Density
Mixed Use (MU-1) and High Density Mixed Use (MU-2). MU-1 and MU-2 are
designations intended for use in a second phase of the CAP.
At public hearings held in June and July 1999, the Historic Resources Board (HR),
Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning Commission provided comments and
alternatives to these WG recommendations which are summarized later in this report. The
verbatim minutes of the Planning Commission and HRB are attached (Attachments B and
C) and the ARB action minutes are included as Attachment D. The Public Arts Commission
also reviewed the WG Plan.
CMR:427:99 Page 1 of 35
Since the WG and Planning Commission action, staff’s major focus has been to develop a
practical implementation proposal to turn the Plan’s visions into reality. Practical
implementation tools are a vital - and unique - component of Palo Alto’s CAP Ordinance
(Ordinance). A key purpose of the Ordinance is "to facilitate physical change." Unlike
traditional planning tools, where the community’s desires are defined without direct
community control, and more or less independently of economic and fiscal factors, the CAP
process depends upon "building a sense of community through public involvement" and
"considering the economic environment so that the planning process works in conjunction
with the marketplace, rather than independent of it." (PAMC 19.10.010.) Also unique to
Palo Alto’s Ordinance is the requirement for coordination of public infrastructure plans to
facilitate desirable private land uses. To assure it is "coordinated," the City Council must
consider the manner in which the Plan will integrate with and be implemented by the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP).
The staff has explored funding mechanisms to achieve the CAP goals, and developed
alternatives for consideration (Attachment E). This staff-recommended CAP has been
developed to present an economically feasible plan that staff has concluded would reinforce
the vitality of SOFA, generate positive change in the area and carry out the vision and goals
of the WG. The Plan is dependent upon strategic capital improvements by the City. Staff
envisions a vibrant neighborhood centered on a new 2.41-acre public facility surrounded by
a pedestrian-oriented urban environment that will create interaction between local residents
and workers. The staff-recommended CAP would create housing oppommities for a wide
variety of people, including seniors, families and professionals, within close proximity to
jobs and transit. Staff believes the SOFA Plan will result in a vital mixed-use community
that is oriented to the existing facilities and builds on the unique character of the area.
Summerhill Homes has contracted to purchase all the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF)
properties within the CAP area and has submitted a proposal to implement the CAP goals.
This proposal includes new residential and commercial development, with provision to
dedicate 1.5 acres of land for public facilities and affordable housing. In addition to this
dedication, PAMF will assign at no cost a lease to 0.1 acres of land on PAMF’s main block
(existing Lee Building) for public facility purposes. All new development proposed by
Summerhill Homes will be subject to a design review process to ensure neighborhood
compatibility.
.Staffrecommends that the City Council approve the staff-recommended SOFA Plan, endorse
the SHH implementation and direct staffto take the financial and contractual steps necessary
to implement the Plan, including preparation of any necessary ordinances, resolutions and
agreements. These steps will include a substantial "up front" City investment to acquire land
for a 2.0-acre park, the Roth Building to be used as a public facility, and a 1.23-acre
affordable housing site. The staff plan includes proposals which should allow the City to
recoup the great majority of its initial investment. Staff’s implementation proposal will result
CMR:427:99 Page 2 of 35
in 1.6 acres of land (including the O. 1-acre lease) - conservatively valued at $8.4 million -
being conveyed to the City at no cost.
CMR:427:99 Page 3 of 35
RECOMMENDATION
Staff reconlmends that the City Council:
Review the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the SOFA
Coordinated Area Plan and .direct staff to prepare a resolution with appropriate
findings. If parkland to meet the Comprehensive Plan guidelines is not acquired,
direct staff to prepare a statement of overriding considerations based upon a
determination that the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the
Area Plan outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impact to open space.
Dicect staff to prepare an implementing ordinance to adopt the staff-recommended
SOFA Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) which would include the following:
¯Policies and Programs of the Plan as identified in Chapter III for Phase I.
¯Land use pattern which includes:
2.0-acre neighborhood park located either along Homer Avenue
between Bryant and Waverley Street, or along Waverley Street between
Homer and Channing Avenues,
-Acquisition of the 0.41-acre Roth Building and site as a public facility,
-Provision of up to a 1.23-acre site for affordable housing,
-0.29-acre (12,500 square feet) site for a child care center, and
-Land use designations, development standards and design guidelines for
Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS) and Attached Multiple Family
(AMF).
¯Maintain the current circulation pattern on Homer and Channing Avenues and
continue to explore solutions to calm traffic that could include conversion to two-
way, narrowing of the traffic lanes, bulb-outs, or other measures.
¯Pursue an under-crossing of the Caltraintracks at Homer Avenue.
¯Maintain the historic resources in SOFA by requiring ~ompliance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation for all properties identified
as meeting the criteria for the National Register of Historic Places.
¯Separate all CAP Phase II items for later review and study.
¯SOFA review processes detailed in the CAP requiring design review for all new
development to ensure neighborhood compatibility, appropriate massing and
creation of distinctive architectural styles. These processes also include an
exception and amendment procedure.
Endorse the Summerhill Homes (SKI-I) implementation of the SOFA CAP including:
¯Location of a 2.0-acre park along Homer Avenue,
¯Non-residential use along Homer Avenue between Bryant and Ramona Street, and
¯Conveyance of 1.6 acres of land for public facilities and affordable housing.
ClVlR:427:99 Page 4 of 35
Direct City participation in the implementation of the SOFA CAP by:
¯ Staff negotiation to acquire 1.56 acres of land for the creation of a 2.41-acre park
and public facility (including Roth Building),
¯Staff negotiation to acquire 0.48 acres of land for the creation of a 1.23-acre
affordable housing site.
Direct staff to develop a detailed financing package for acquisitions in SOFA,
including a Budget Amendment Ordinance for the up-front costs, which would
include the acquisition, development and maintenance costs of the park and Roth
Building.
Direct staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating the Summerhill
Homes proposal and dedication of 1.6 acres of land for public use, and taking the
actions necessary to implement the financing package.
BACKGROUND
As a part of the Comprehensive Plan update, the use of the CAP as an important planning
and governance implementation mechanism was approved by the City Council. Specifically,
Goal L-4, Regional Centers, South of Forest Area (SOFA), Policy L-22 directs that a CAP
be prepared for the SOFA area. The boundaries of the SOFA CAP encompass approximately
a 50-acre area, bounded by Forest and Addison Avenues and Alma and Kipling Streets.
Pursuant to the implementation of Policy L-22, staff prepared a draft policy framework for
the completion of the SOFA CAP. The City Council approved an Ordinance (Palo Alto
Municipal Code Chapter 19.10) outlining procedures for preparation of Coordinated Area
Plans and thirteen goals and objectives to act as a policy framework for the preparation of
the SOFA CAP (see Attachment F). At the time the policy framework was approved in
September 1997, the Council appointed a 14-member Working Group (WG) and 5 alternates
to advise staff, the consultants, boards and commissions, and Council on preparation of the
Plan. The WG met over a period of 20 months as it created a set of recommendations that
represented its shared vision for the area. A detailed account of the milestones and hearings
held to date is contained in Attachment G. At the WG meetings of May 19 and May 26,
1999, the group formulated its final recommendations for SOFA, in light of all the comments
received from the boards, commissions and public to date. The final recommendations were
incorporated into the WG Draft Plan (June 1999). The June 1999 Plan has been reviewed by
the HRB, ARB and Planning Commission and an outline of their key comments are detailed
later in this report and verbatim minutes of these discussions are enclosed in Attachments B,
C and D. Throughout the CAP process, these thirteen objectives assisted the WG in
formulating its vision for the area.
The Plan is intended to reinforce the vitality of the existing uses in the area as well as provide
policies and guidance for those properties that may redevelop in the future. A major
CMR:427:99 Page 5 of 35
component of the plan deals with the development of land vacated as Palo Alto Medical
Foundation (P MF) moves its current medical facilities to its new campus on E1 Camino
Real. A key component of the June 9, 1999 WG Plan was to split the project into two
phases. Phase I encompassing all the residentially designated properties (DHS and AMF)
and the proposed new park; and Phase II consisting of the Mixed Use (MU-1 and MU-2)
designated properties. The WG had reached a consensus on the land uses proposed in the
Phase I portion of the CAP and this approach enabled a portion of the project, which
included a significant portion of PAMF’s holdings, to move forward. This report covers the
provisions of Phase I of the Plan; Phase II portions of the CAP will be subject to further
study.
Following completion of the WG Plan, staff evaluated the proposal and explored
mechanisms for funding its major components. Part of this evaluation process involved
weighing the competing goals of the WG Plan, including historic preservation, tree
preservation, increased housing supply and the provision of open space. Weighing these
competing goals was further complicated by the need to identify potential sources of revenue
and to consider dedication of land for open space and affordable housing. This is especially
difficult given the escalating cost of land in Palo Alto, particularly acute in the SOFA area.
Staff analyzed a variety of funding sources, including park impact fees, assessment districts,
grant funding, sale of existing public facilities and property tax revenues. This information
was used to refine the cost/benefit analysis of the WG Plan.
Staff’s recommended CAP is detailed as Attachment E. The areas where the
recommendations differ from the WG and proposed changes to the WG Plan recommended
by staff are described in the discussion section. These are summarized in the table in
Attachment H. Additionally, the staff-recommended CAP shows all text changes from the
WG Plan with strike-out and italicized/underlined text.
Summerhill Homes (SHH) has entered into an agreement with PAMF to acquire and develop
all of the PA_MF properties with the exception of a the Roth Building and adjacent site area
(located at the comer of Bryant Street and Homer Avenue) and the 12,500-square-foot
childcare site at Channing and Ramona Street. The area to be purchased by Summerhill
Homes is equivalent to approximately 8.6 acres. SHH has developed a proposal that is
intended to implement Phase I of the Plan. A summary of the proposal and the differences
from the staff recommendations is detailed later in this report. A detailed project statement
prepared by SHH will be submitted under separate cover and included in the City Council
packet.
DISCUSSION/SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
This section of the report is organized with a discussion of the major issues of the SOFA
CAP (including the WG Plan and, where applicable, the staff proposal). This discussion is
then followed by a summary of SHH’s proposal.
CMR:427:99 Page 6 of 35
(For orientation purposes, the PAMF-owned properties are illustrated on Attachment I, which
are identified on a block-by-block basis (i.e. Block A, Block B, etc.). The block letter
identifications are referenced throughout this report.)
A. SOFA CAP
The key issues addressed in the SOFA CAP are described below and include the following:
the land use pattern, development standards and review process, transportation/circulation,
historic preservation, childcare and the phasing of the CAP.
1. Land Use Pattern
a. Neighborhood Park.and Roth Building
The policy framework adopted by the City Council directed the WG to pursue opportunities
for public facilities in the CAP area. These facilities included the provision of parks and
open space as well as libraries, child care centers and public art. The Comprehensive Plan
includes a number of policies and programs related to the provision of parks and open space
(see Policy C-27 and C-28, Program C-25 and C-26 contained in Appendix E- 1, Volume 2
of the Plan). Over the course of the planning process, the WG had significant discussion as
to how these policies relate to the Plan area and, particularly, what size park would be most
appropriate in SOFA.
Scott Park, which is approximately 0.4 acres, is currently located within the Plan area. Scott
Park amenities include seating.areas, children’s play equipment, a half-court basketball court,
and a turf area. Existing neighborhood park facilities in the vicinity of SOFA include
Johnson Park, Kellogg/Bowling Green Park, Lytton Plaza and Cogswell Plaza. However, it
should be noted that the larger parks (Johnson Park and Kellogg/Bowling Green Park) are
not readily accessible to SOFA residents, as they are located across major thoroughfares and
at the edge of what is generally recognized to be an acceptable walking distance (0.5 mile).
The other available parks are more urban in design and smaller than the two-acre size
suggested in the Comprehensive Plan. The Addison School playground is located two blocks
from the eastern boundary of the planning area and does supplement the available open space
available to the residents in the vicinity.
The maximum development potential under the WG Plan could result in approximately 450
housing units being generated in the area. Assuming the Palo Alto average of 2.2 persons
per household and using the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, the need for parkland
attributable to development in SOFA would be approximately 1.93 acres of neighborhood
park. However, staff anticipates that the actual build-out of the SOFA area could be
considerably less than the projected maximums, and that the actual number of units generated
in the area is likely to be between 300 and 350 units. This is because the current residential
CMR:427:99 Page 7 of 35
market is geared to larger, less dense residential units and therefore many developers are
expected to provide projects at the lower end of the allowed density range. Therefore, the
park acreage necessary to meet the needs of the new population could be less than 1.93 acres.
Working Group Recommendation
The WG’s final recommendation was for a 2.5-acre neighborhood park, located on the main
PAMF block (Block B) fronting on Waverley Street, between Homer and Channing Avenue
(see Attachment A). The WG recommended that the existing 0.4-acre Scott Park remain as
open space/park use, but with the understanding that it could be sold if the revenue generated
was essential for acquisition of a 2.5-acre park on Block B. Following a protest hearing
procedure before the City Council, a simple majority of Palo Alto voters would be required
to allow the sale of Scott Park. If Scott Park were not sold, the total neighborhood park area
under the WG Plan would be 2.9 acres which would exceed the Comprehensive Plan size
guidelines of 2.0 acres per 1,000 population.
The WG discussion focused on the need for additional parks and open space in the plan area
and responded to the anticipated needs generated by increased housing units. Options were
suggested during the plan formulation which included a 2.0 acre park similar to Johnson
Park, a linear park, pocket parks, an enlarged Scott Park and joint use facilities. Other issues
discussed included whether the park should primarily serve nearby residents, downtown
employees or all City residents.
The WG Plan includes opportunities for flae provision of private open space. The
development standards for Attached Multi-family Housing (AMF) require a minimum of 20
percent of the site to be common open space, in addition to 100 square feet of private open
space per unit. Furthermore, the AMF design guidelines also recommend a variety of public
pedestrian amenities to increase the available open space around future developments~
including pedestrian arcades and plazas, benches and other public/private open space.
Staff Proposal
Staff recommends a 2.0-acre park, which is consistent with the guidelines established in the
Comprehensive Plan and exceeds the open space needs of the maximum population possible
under the adoption of the Plan. Staff proposes that the design of the SOFA neighborhood
park be modeled after the 2.0-acre Johnson Park, which is located at the comer of Everett and
Waverley Streets in north Palo Alto. Specifically, park area would be extended to the existing
curb-line to increase the park by modifying the standard sidewalk-park strip section. This
technique was used in the design of Johnson Park and would add approximately 0.2 acres or
more to the size of the new park in SOFA. Staff recommends that Scott Park be sold and the
area be designated as DHS, in order to partially fund acquisition of land for new public
facilities, including a park in the SOFA area.
CMR:427:99 Page 8 of 35
Staff is supportive of the WG recommendation relating to the location and orientation of a
new park, however, staff recommends an alternative approach. The WG located the park
along Waverley Street between Homer and Channing Avenue. This proposal anticipated the
Roth Building being occupied as a medical or general office use. The remainder of the block
was designated as AMF at a density of between 30 and 50 dwelling units per acre. Staff
recommends, instead, that the park be located along Homer Avenue between Waverley and
Bryant Streets. Staff recommends this approach assuming the City wishes to purchase the
Roth Building to be held for possible future use as a public facility. This orientation would
place the Roth Building in the new park and provide for combined public facilities of 2.41
acres. Possible uses of the Roth Building could include a community center, arts center, or
other community-oriented use. The use of this structure as a public facility provides
flexibility for a variety of uses and allows for a substantial public facility when located
within the neighborhood park.
b. Affordable/BMR Housing
One of the goals of the Plan is to generate a significant number of housing units, especially
affordable housing. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan identifies provision of affordable
housing and market rate housing in the community as a significant goal (see Program H-20,
BMR Program of the Comprehensive Plan in Appendix E, Volume 2 of the Plan).
Housing developments in Palo Alto are required to comply with the provisions of the City
BMR program. The BMR Program’s goal is to obtain housing units within each development
rather than fees, although other alternatives may be considered if they achieve program goals.
The BMR program also stipulates that projects on sites larger than 5.0 acres will provide 15
percent 0fthe units for the BMR/affordable housing program.
Working Group Recommendation
To meet the policy framework and Comprehensive Plan goals, the WG Plan calls for PAMF,
a landowner of more than 5.0 acres in the Plan Area, to provide BMR units equivalent to 15
percent of the total units proposed or land equivalent to 15 percent of the developing
properties for an affordable housing development. Properties that are not changing use or
will be a public use are not counted as developing properties. Properties that would be
excluded from the BMR requirement would include the existing residential properties that
would not be redeveloped, reuse of historic sites (e.g. Roth Building, etc), land dedicated for
parkland and the proposed childcare center site. Exclusion of these properties would result
in approximately 5.0 acres of PAMF land subject to the BMR requirement.
The WG specifically recommended that PAMF make provision for affordable housing by
offering developable land. The WG identified the southwest comer of the PAMF main block
(Block B) at Bryant Street and Channing Avenue as a potential affordable housing site of 1
to 1.5 acres.
CMR:427:99 Page 9 of 35
Staff Proposal
Planning staff has evaluated the WG Plan from a land use and fiscal viewpoint and analyzed
the relative merits of obtaining built units rather than land. Because more units can be
constructed on raw land as part of a single project than could be secured as BMR units as
individual projects are built, and because the units would be constructed quickly, allowing
more control over the design and size of the units, and, finally, because a single location
would permit more efficient and effective management of the BMR program units, staff has
concluded that obtaining land was the preferable strategy.
Staff consulted with several local architects and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation in
developing scenarios for multi-family development in the Plan Area. Staff has determined
that the WG goal of 30 or more units of affordable housing (Program H-l) can be achieved
on a smaller site. The location of the staff-proposed 2.0-acre park and the retention of the
Roth Building on Block B compelled staff to consider alternative sites for affordable
housing. Staff evaluated the possibility of locating an affordable housing project on Block
C (Research Building, parking and adjacent properties).
Two options have been developed for the configuration of a site at this location. Staffs
recommendation is to acquire a 1.23-acre site that is capable of producing between 32 and
47 BMR units. This site is comprised of the Research Building property, associated parking
and three adjacent properties (totaling 0.35 acres) currently occupied by residential buildings
on Bryant Street (830, 840, and 846 Bryant). This would necessitate the City purchasing 0.48
acres of land to achieve a 1.23-acre parcel (0.75 dedicated, 0.48 purchased). Funding to
purchase land is available through the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund (approximately $3.0
million) accumulated over the past several years. In addition, Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds could also be used for land purchase and any pre-development
costs associated with an affordable housing project. Funding for building construction could
also come from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund or other financing sources. One
advantage of this approach is that the City maintains flexibility over how the three Bryant
Street properties are developed. Two of these sites (840 and 846 Bryant) are currently
occupied by historic structures that are potentially eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places that could either be relocated to other sites or converted to affordable multi-
family residential units. Alternatively, if City Council does not pursue acquisition of the
additional 0.35-acres of land on Bryant Street, an affordable housing project could still be
constructed on the remaining 0.9 acres, yielding 30 units or more.
Existing on the proposed site are three protected oak trees. Under either of the above
development options, schematic site plans indicate that the 30-inch valley oak and 10-inch
coast live oak can be retained and incorporated into a building design without a negative
impact on the potential housing yield. However, the 18-inch coast live oak located on the
CMR:427:99 Page 10 of 35
interior of the lot would, in all likelihood, be removed as a result of any proposed housing
project and would require mitigation under the CAP.
One of the challenges of the SOFA Plan was how to reconcile potential conflicts between competing
goals. For instance, protection of all the existing mature trees significantly affects the construction
costs, configuration and affordable housing yield possible on this site. Staff proposes that the SOFA
CAP create a policy that permits the removal of trees if such removal furthers other community
goals, while remaining subject to the tree replacement policies of the Tree Preservation and
Management regulations.
c. Residential Land Use
The policy framework £or the CAP established a goal to provide a significant quantity of new
housing, with residential uses as the predominant land use on the PAMF properties. This
included allowing a variety of housing types, including affordable housing, in consideration
of the area’s close proximity to jobs, transit and services.
Working Group Recommendation
The WG Plan recommended general transition of increased density from 8 dwellings units
per acre (du/ac) at the south east portion of the Plan Area, increasing in density to 50 units
per acre toward Downtown and Alma Street. The estimated range of housing units possible
under the WG Plan ranges from 245 to 450 units, although it is unlikely that the upper range
of this total will be achieved given the current market preferences. Non-PAMF-owned
properties are anticipated to produce between 128 and 233 units, and the PAMF-owned
properties are expected to yield between 117 and 217 additional residential units.
The WG Plan supports the provision of a variety of housing types that range from single
family detached residences to condominiums and co-housing units. This includes the
implementation of minimum and maximum 10t sizes on parcels designated Detached Houses
on Small Lots (DHS), which will prevent the creation of large single-family lots. The goal
of this proposal is to provide smaller homes and lots that are affordable to larger numbers of
local employees and residents than traditional single-family housing. The WG
recommendations also include floor area incentives in the development standards for DHS
to encourage second units that can provide rental opportunities and additional owner income.
In the Attached Multiple Family (AMF) designation, there is a minimum density of 30 units
per acre that is applicable to all developments, which guarantees a certain number of units
in the area. Designated historic resources are exempt from this requirement in order to
encourage preservation. The AMF development standards also include a further bonus of
up to 60 units per acre for projects that are entirely affordable housing, senior housing or
rental projects. Co-housing type developments are also permitted in the AMF-designated
areas.
CMR:427:99 Page 11 of 35
Staff Proposal
Staff recommends that the following minor modifications to the residential land use pattern
that the WG Plan proposed:
With the smaller park size recommended by staff, the AMF-designated land o1~ the
PAMF main block (Block B) will be larger than the area identified by the WG.
Specifically, if the Roth Building is acquired for a public facility and designated
Public Facility (PF), there would be approximately 2.1 acres of AMF remaining
on the block to be developed. Alternatively, if the Roth Building is used as a
medical office or general office use, approximately 2.5 acres of AMF would
remain on the PAMF main block.
¯Designate the area currently occupied by Scott Park as DHS, if the sale of the park
is approved by the Palo Alto voters.
Designate the properties at 819 Ramona Street and 260-66 Homer Avenue
(designated MU-1 by the WG) as AMF and revisit the designation of these
properties in Phase II or as a part of a development proposal.
¯AMF Land Use designation would be amended to allow non-residential uses as
conditional uses with specific size limitations.
d. Non-residential Land Uses
The City Council direction on non-residential uses was to plan for convenient neighborhood
and local commercial uses and services, including automobile repair, hardware and sundries.
Preservation and enhancement of the historically mixed-use character of the area was also
identified as a goal of the Plan. Appropriate and mutually compatible uses were also desired
that provide vitality and convenience for residents, businesses and visitors.
Working Group Recommendation
The WG Plan designated areas generally west of Ramona Street as a new mixed use district
(MU-1 and MU-2). Both the staff and WG members concurred that the development
standards proposed for these districts need further refinement and will therefore be subject
to additional study under Phase II of the Coordinated Area Plan. The division between Phase
I and Phase II as adopted by the WG is illustrated on the WG Plan Concept (Attachment A).
Staff Proposal
Staff recommends the following non-residential land use changes:
¯Modify the line dividing Phase I and Phase II to incorporate all PA_MF-owned and
controlled properties. The reason for this recommendation is that the development
CMR:427:99 Page 12 of 35
agreement between PAMF and the City of Palo Alto for the approval of the Urban
Lane campus set time limits for the completion of!and use designations on PAMF
property. This agreement is due to end in March 2000. Therefore, inclusion of
all of the PAMF properties in Phase I will ensure that each of its properties are
given a land use/zoning designation prior to the expiration of the terms of-the
development agreement.
Retain the existing zoning designation Commercial Downtown (Service) with
Pedestrian Overlay District (CD-S(P)) for 820 Ramona Street (designated MU-1
by the WG) and revisit the designation of the property in Phase II or as a part of
a development proposal.
Any additional non-residential land uses approved should be included in the
Commercial Downtown Monitoring Program and the monitoring area amended
accordingly.
e. Non-conforming Uses.
The policy framework adopted by the City Council did not specifically address non-
conforming uses. However, the development agreement restricted PAMF’s right to occupy
the existing PAMF facilities for medical or any other purposes once the new Urban Lane site
was occupied. The only exceptions to this were for a small satellite facility (less than 13,000
square feet) that was not to be located within the blocks bounded by Channing, Homer,
Waverley and Ramona Streets (Block B and C).
Working Group Recommendation
The WG Plan made one specific recommendation for the maintenance of non-conforming
uses in the area. Specifically, PAMF’s use of the Roth Building as a satellite medical office
was endorsed as a strategy for historic rehabilitation of the structure. The WG Plan also
established a policy to "permit continued non-conforming use of historic buildings if
necessary to assure preservation and restoration of historic resources". This action would
require an amendment to the terms of the development agreement between the City and
PAMF.
Staff Proposal
In addition to the use of the Roth Building as a office or public facility, staff recommends
that the Victorian building at 737 Bryant Street (Psychiatry Building) also be permitted to
remain as a non-conforming office use. This would require the existing development
agreement with PAMF to be amended. This direction is consistent with the WG Plan, as the
existing building is a Historic Resource property under the Interim Historic Preservation
Ordinance, and granting non-conforming status to this building is an established practice in
CMR:427:99 Page 13 of 35
encouraging preservation. This non-conforming use status is conditional on the structure
being rehabilitated to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation.
There are also several existing non-conforming uses in the planning area that were not
specifically discussed in the WG Plan. These uses are the dentist offices at 824-8 Bryant
Street, Palo Alto Nursing Home (911 Bryant Street), medical offices at 400 Channing
Avenue and offices at 385 Homer Avenue. The existing zoning designations applicable to
each of these properties allows medical and professional offices to remain if they were lawful
conforming uses prior to July 20, 1978. Staff recommends that this same provision be
extended to these properties as part of the SOFA Plan.
2. Development Standards and Review Process
Working Group Recommendation
The WG Plan included a comprehensive set of development standards, design guidelines and
illustrative prototypes to guide the future development of the SOFA area. Four new land use
and zoning designations were created, Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS), Attached
Multiple Family Housing (AMF), Moderate Density Mixed Use (MU-1) and High Density
Mixed Use (MU-2). The MU-1 and MU-2 will be subject to further study and consideration
as part of Phase II of the Plan. A summary of the key development standards for these
designations is included in Table V-1 of the WG Plan (page 92).
The WG also proposed a set of design guidelines that would guide development and provide
developers with a clear indication of the desired end product. These guidelines were
intended to be flexible and permit creativity in the design of projects.
Staff Proposal
Several comments were received during the public hearings concerning suggested changes
to the draft standards and guidelines. Staffhas redrafted the DHS and AMF sections, and the
revised development standards and design guidelines are contained in the staff-recommended
CAP. Changes from the WG Plan are shown in strike-out and bold, italicized text.
a. Review Process
The Coordinated Area Plan ordinance envisioned a streamlined process for projects that were
consistent with the Plan document. All project approvals are to be decided through a
"Coordinated Development Permit" (CDP) which would combine several existing review
processes. The Planning Division and City Attorney’s Office are currently development
ordinance amendments for the CDP.
CMR:427:99 Page 14 of 35
Working Group Recommendation
The WG expressed a desire to have a design review process for all types of applications,
including single-family residential developments. The preference was for the single-family
review to be completed by staff using the proposed design guidelines. ARB review and
approval was envisioned for all other application types (non single-family), with approval
based on the same design guidelines as those in the Plan. The Plan also includes the
possibility of establishing a joint staff and ARB review committee that would review minor
projects in an expedited manner. At the time the Plan was publicly distributed, staff was in
the process of further developing this idea.
The WG Plan also included a mechanism by which the Plan could be amended in the future
in order to reflect changes in City policy or to modify the provisions of the development
standards. Two levels of amendment were anticipated. An "Administrative Amendment"
would be used for minor changes to the development standards or design guidelines and
would be at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. "Plan
Amendments" would be for major changes to the policies, programs or development
standards and would be at the discretion of the City Council. The City Council would
determine the applicable amendment process at the time of the initiation of the change.
Staff Proposal
A CDP will be required for all project approvals in SOFA. Staffrecommends that a design
review process be instituted based on the expedited review described above. The joint staff-
ARB committee could meet as needed to review small projects that qualify, significantly
reducing review time. The ARB members support such a concept. Details of the parameters,
appeals process and fees have yet to be determined.
b. Exception Process
There may be instances when it will be necessary to grant approval for deviations from the
development standards in order to achieve the broader objectives of the Plan on a project by
project basis. Both the Planning Commission and ARB commented on the need to provide
flexibility in the standards that would permit creative design solutions.
Working Group Recommendation
Details of the proposed exception process are contained in Chapter IV of the WG Plan (page
81 to 87) and summarized below.
The WG Plan included two types of exceptions: minor and major. The determination of
whether a requested exception was minor or major would be the decision of the Director of
Planning and Community Environment. Minor exceptions would be decided by the Director
of Planning and Community Environment following the recommendation of the ARB or by
the Zoning Administrator. Major exceptions would be granted by the Director of Planning
CMR:427:99 Page 15 of 35
and Community Environment on the recommendation of both the ARB and Planning
Commission.
The WG specifically recommended that Planned Community Zone changes should not be
permitted in SOFA, although there was a significant number of the group that did not endorse
this recommendation.
Staff Proposal
Staff recommends that the WG procedures and review process be implemented. In cases
where the exceptions to the development standards are known in advance, staff recommends
that these changes be identified for future implementation.
3. Transportation!Circulation
a. Conversion of Homer and Channing Avenue to Two-Way
The policy framework directed the WG to evaluate the feasibility of re-establishing Homer
and Channing Avenue as two-way streets to reduce the speed and impact of traffic through
this residential and mixed use neighborhood. The City Council also suggested that new
alleys could be established that are consistent with the historic development pattern in the
area.
During the planning process, two main issues were identified that related to the conversion
of these streets, namely issues at Whole Foods Market (774 Emerson Street) and Channing
House (850 Webster Street). The issues identified at Whole Foods related to pedestrian safety
in the mid-block crossing, loading and unloading of delivery vehicles and circulation of
traffic into and out of the parking lot. The concerns raised by the residents of Channing
House mainly related to the safety of vehicles entering and exiting the underground parking,
loading and unloading of delivery vehicles and the general circulation of traffic around the
Channing House.
Working Group Recommendation
The WG supports the conversion of Homer and Channing from one-way to two-way streets
for their entire length. However, concerns about loading, trucks, ingress and egress of
seniors at Channing House, and the pedestrian crosswalk at Whole Foods Market prompted
additional discussions. Several alternatives have been suggested, including retention of the
one-way streets between Alma and Waverley or Bryant Streets. High Street was also
proposed to be converted to two-way traffic flow from Homer to Channing Avenue.
The May 1999 Draft WG Plan proposed that the conversion of Homer and Channing Avenue
and a portion of High Street to two-way flow be delayed to allow further study of the issues
by the Transportation Division. This recommendation was based on comments received in
CMR:427:99 Page 16 of 35
the public hearings of the first draft of the Plan concerning Whole Foods and the Channing
House.
At its meetings in May 1999, the WG agreed that the Plan should still propose that these
streets be converted to two-way traffic flow, with the caveat that the conversion only occur
at such time as the issues at Whole Foods and Channing House are resolved, and when
adequate funding is secured.
Staff Proposal
Staff agrees with the WG that Homer and Channing Avenue should remain one-way until
such time that the issues and conflicts at Whole Foods Market and Channing House are
resolved. Staff recommends that a policy be included that states the goal of the Plan should
be to calm traffic in the most appropriate way on Homer and Channing Avenue This could
include a combination of design solutions, such as conversion to two-way flow, narrowing
of traffic lanes and bulb-outs, etc.
b. Under-crossing of Caltrain Tracks at Homer Avenue
One of the goals of the Plan was to conduct a feasibility study to thoroughly explore all
possible means for construction of a pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the Caltrain tracks
to provide access from the Downtown and SOFA to the Urban Lane area and the Stanford
campus beyond. As a part of the planning process, a study of this issue was conducted which
concluded that an under-crossing was the most beneficial and functional solution, in contrast
to an at-grade crossing or bridge. Details of the findings of this study are contained in
Appendix F (Volume 2) of the WG Dratt Plan. The feasibility study included an analysis of
the proposed design solutions, identified constraints and resulted in the creation of a scale
model of the preferred design solution.
The under-crossing is anticipated to cost approximately $2.5 million, with primary sources
of funding to be from grants. Last year, staff pursued funding for this project through the first
cycle of Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) funding. The project
scored well, but was not on the final list of projects approved for funding by the Metropolit .an
Transportation Commission (MTC). Planning for the second cycle of TEA-21 funding has
recently begun. Staffhas resubmitted a request to the Valley Transportation Agency (VTA)
for $2,035,000 in second cycle TEA-21 funding, for inclusion in the priority ranking of Santa
Clara County projects. A minimum local match of $300,000 would be required, which
equates to the amount to be contributed to the cost of construction by PAMF. The VTA
Board is expected to approve the final list of projects to be submitted to MTC in early 2000.
If the project is funded by MTC, the monies would be available in fall 2000 and would need
to be encumbered by September 2002.
CMR:427:99 Page 17 of 35
It should be noted that the design selected is based on the assumption that Homer Avenue is
converted to two-way traffic flow. This is due to safety issues relating to bicycle and
pedestrian circulation and access across Alma Street. Any re-examination of the conversion
of Homer Avenue would need to resolve this issue satisfactorily.
Working Group Recommendation
The WG plan endorsed the proposed under-crossing.
Staff Proposal
Staffs recommendation
feasibility study.
is to follow the recommendations of the WG and completed
4. Historic Preservation
The SOFA area contains many historic resources and the policy framework for the CAP
preparation directed the WG to encourage the preservation and viable continued uses of
landmark structures, as well as to evaluate the preservation of contributing structures in the
area that compose the heritage of SOFA. The City Council also recognized that, in order to
achieve the other CAP objectives, not all historic structures may be able to be preserved and
directed that examination of the potential alternatives (including demolition, relocation and
alteration) be explored.
Some of the historic buildings within the Plan area include: the Roth Building at 300 Homer,
AME Zion Church at 819 Ramona, French Laundry at 260 Homer, 737 Bryant (Psychiatry
Building), four residences in the 800 block of Bryant Street, and the Williams House and
Garden. In addition, nine residential properties within the Plan Area overlap with the
Professorville National Register Historic District.
Working Group Recommendation
The WG Plan identified several policies that relate to historic structures. The WG Plan
defers all regulations concerning historic resources to the Historic Preservation Ordinance
that was approved in June 1999 by the City Council. This ordinance provided protection for
all resources identified as either Palo Alto Historic Register properties or Historic Resource
List properties under that ordinance (illustrated on Page 59 of the WG Plan, Figure 10).
Several policies were included in the WG Plan to encourage the preservation and re-use of
existing resources, including a reduction in the parking requirements, use of the historic
building code, exemptions from the minimum densities and continuation of certain non-
conforming uses in historic buildings. In addition, Policy DC-16 (page 71 of WG Plan)
proposes selective relocation of resources as a preservation strategy, provided that such
relocation be in proximity to the existing site. The Roth Building, located at the corner of
Homer Avenue and Bryant Streets, was specifically identified to be preserved (Policy DC-
12) and Program DC-3 proposes a detailed strategy for achieving this goal, including
CMR:427:99 Page 18 of 35
exploring the possibility of permitting PAMF to use the restored structure as a satellite
medical facility. Another building specifically identified to be preserved is the AME Zion
Church located at 819 Ramona Street.
The development standards and design guidelines included in the WG Plan emphasizethe
need for new projects to carefully consider existing neighborhood character in their design.
New developments are required to achieve compatibility with the existing historic structures
by adopting design approaches that respect the massing, scale and the size of the existing
area.
Staff Proposal
As with the WG Plan, staffs alternative proposal provides for the retention of all of the
historic resources of SOFA. Although the policy framework identified the possibility of the
demolition of some resources, the staff proposal is to relocate or reuse these buildings. All
properties identified as a resource are to be retained and will be required to be restored in
accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation.
The Roth Building would be restored and used as either an office or a public facility. The
building located at 737 Bryant Street (Psychiatry Building) will be granted non-conforming
status and be renovated for occupancy by either an office or residential use. In addition, two
Victorian structures currently used as administrative offices by PAMF (located on Channing
Avenue between Ramona and Bryant Street) will be restored and converted to single-family
use.
The existing four residences located on Bryant Street would either be reused or relocated.
Specifically, the two homes at 802 and 806 Bryant Street are Historic Resource List
properties and can be retained and used as housing. The AMF guidelines exempt designated
historic resources from meeting the minimum densities of the zone and therefore these
structures could be renovated as either single-family homes or multi-family dwellings.
Residential structures at 840 and 846 Bryant Street could be included in the affordable
housing project site. It is possible that these structures could be relocated to a vacant
property (public or privately owned) elsewhere in the City. Alternatively, the structures could
be rehabilitated and converted to multiple units and be available as affordable housing.
The staffproposal would also include the restoration of the AME Zion Church in its present
location in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic
Rehabilitation. The structure was significantly damaged during the Loma Prieta earthquake
and has been vacant for several years. The staff recommendation also retains the French
Laundry building (266 Homer Avenue) and requires any modifications to maintain the
historic integrity of the structure and be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Historic Rehabilitation.
CMR:427:99 Page 19 of 35
5. Childcare Center
There is a significant need for childcare throughout Palo Alto, in particular for infants and
toddlers. This shortage is particularly acute in the Downtown area. The adopted policy
framework encouraged the creation of new child care facilities in the area. In-the
development agreement for the Urban Lane campus, as amended, PAMF committed to
provide the 12,500-square-foot property located at the corner of Ramona Street and
Channing Avenue for this purpose. The property would be leased to the City at $1 per year
for 35 years for a childcare center.
Working Group Recommendation
The WG Plan supports the construction ofa childcare center for 50 or more infants, toddlers
and pre-schoolers within the Plan Area. Since the production of the WG Plan, a feasibility
study has been completed of the leased site described above and proposals from potential
developers/operators are currently under review by the City. The study found that a two-
story center for 81 children was feasible for this site, based on the assumption that there
would be no on-site parking for employees and that the drop-off area would be located on
the Ramona Street and Channing Avenue. Provision for parking for this development would
have to be achieved through some kind of shared parking arrangement with nearby uses, an
off-site parking arrangement or through an exception process of some kind. Staff is
confident that opportunities exist in the area for shared parking and off-site parking
arrangements. However, if exceptions are needed, reductions in parking would be consistent
with the child care goals of the CAP and therefore supported by staff.
Staff Proposal
No changes to the WG recommendations are proposed.
5. SOFA Plan: Phase II
Based upon the comments received from the City boards and commissions to date, staff
recommended that the SOFA CAP be implemented in two phases. The comments received
from the boards and commissions were mainly concerning the proposed development
standards in the MU districts, particularly in respect to the permitted floor area and density.
However, there was general agreement with the proposed mix of uses in the DHS and AMF
designated parts of the plan. Therefore, in order not to further delay completion of the entire
plan while the MU districts were re-studied, staff proposed that the plan be phased.
Working Group Recommendation
The WG endorsed the principal of phasing the Plan, as proposed by the staff at the WG
meetings on May 19 and May 26, 1999. Several WG members commented that there was
a strong consensus on the Plan in the Phase I area, but more disagreement on the
recommendations in the Phase II portion of the planning area. The phasing approach would
CMR:427:99 Page 20 of 35
complete a portion of the WG’s recommendations and permit a greater focus on those issues
that remained to be resolved.
Staff Proposal
As discussed previously in this report, under "Non-residential Land Uses," the division of
the planning area presented to the WG did not include all PAMF-controlled properties in the
first phase of the CAP. The group of properties located at the south east corner of Ramona
Street and Homer Avenue (AME Zion Church and French Laundry, etc.) and the property
at 820 Ramona Street (Pathology Building) were designated as MU-1 under the WG Plan.
Staff recommends that these properties be included in Phase I with the properties east of
Ramona designated as AMF and the property at 820 Ramona retaining its current zoning
(Commercial Downtown - Service (CD-S(P)).
Staff anticipates that Phase I will be finalized in December 1999 and that Phase II would
begin immediately after the completion of Phase I. The City Council adoption of Phase I
would consist of the following:
Adoption of all the policies and programs as identified in Chapter III of the staff-
recommended CAP. This would provide the overall direction and framework for the
entire Plan area. Some of these draft policies would not be implemented in Phase I
(i.e, those policies relating to mixed use development) but could be modified during
Phase II.
It should be noted that there are several policies that are applicable to the entire Plan
Area, for instance the sections relating to architectural design, street and heritage trees
and historic preservation. It is intended that these polices will be implemented in
Phase I in the Phase I portion of the Plan area (DHS and AMF) and may be
implemented in the remaining areas as applicable.
¯Implementation and creation of two residential land use designations (Detached
Housing on Small lots (DHS) and Attached Multiple Family housing (AMF)).
It is anticipated that as part of Phase II, the land use pattern and designations currentiy
proposed west of Ramona will be re-evaluated. Staff has concluded that it would be more
appropriate to have reduced floor areas, a greater focus on providing new residential units
and consideration for limiting new non-residential uses.
B. SUMMERHILL HOMES PROPOSAL
As mentioned earlier in this report, Summerhill Homes (SHH) has an option to purchase 8.6
acres of the PAMF holdings and has approached the City with a development proposal for
the area that would implement many of the CAP’s goals and policies. Summerhill Homes’
proposal is generally consistent with the WG and staff recommendations. However, there are
CMR:427:99 Page 21 of 35
differences from the CAP which SHH has indicated are necessary in order to allow
dedication of 0.75 acres for park and 0.75 acres of land for affordable housing. For
comparison purposes, the section below is organized in the same manner as the previous
discussion on the SOFA CAP.
1. Land Use Pattern
a. Neighborhood Park and Roth Building
SHH proposal would not require any changes from the recommended CAP of either a 2.0-
acre park along Waverley Street or a 2.41-acre park and public facility (Roth Building) along
Homer Avenue. Under either proposal, SHH will convey 0.75 acres and sell the remainder
to the City of Palo Alto. However, SHH will retain 16,500 square feet of floor area that
would have been allowed on the land to be conveyed as parkland. This floor area may be
used for residential use in either Block A or Block B.
b. Affordable/BMR Housing
SHH proposal would not require any changes from the recommended CAP. SHH would
satisfy its BMR requirement by conveying 0.75 acres of land in Block C and offer the City
of Palo Alto an option to purchase an additional 0.48 acres.
Residential and Non-residential Land Uses
¯Block A: Development will be consistent with the AMF standards. SHH proposes
that the structure at 737 Bryant Street will be rehabilitated and re-used as an office
building. The site that this structure currently occupies will be reconfigured to create
a smaller property but will remain consistent with the site requirements of AMF
designation. The remainder of the properties being developed on Block A will meet
the proposed AMF requirements and is proposed for 27 condominium units (34
units/acre) and associated parking.
Block B: SHH proposes to construct 66 multi-family units (at 30 units/acre). At
street level, there will be two-story townhouses. Setback from the faces of the
townhouses will be a third floor containing flats and on some portions of the
building there will be fourth-story penthouse flats. The development would have
parking spaces for all the units and guests that would be not visible from the street
(located either underground or within the core of the buildings). The proposal
would result in a floor area ratio (FAR) of approximately 1.68 to 1, whereas the
AMF development standards call for a FAR of 1.5 to 1. As mentioned previously,
to achieve this FAR, SHH is proposing to transfer the additional FAR from the
conveyed parkland. SHH is also proposing to exceed the allowed height in AMF
by 10 feet (55 feet to roof ridge). This is to enable a fourth story to be
accommodated in the building. The fourth story will be stepped back in a manner
that will obscure it from views at adjacent street level. Furthermore, the building
CMR:427:99 Page 22 of 35
will be located adjacent to a large open space area (park) that will usually alleviate
the mass of the structure. Application of the design guidelines through the design
review process will further ensure the structure is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Block C: The northem end of the block would be developed as a mixed-use project
(residential and non-residential). The site consists of the properties at 802, 806 and
816 Bryant Street, 819 Ramona Street (AME Zion Church) and the properties at
260-66 Homer Avenue (French Laundry and parking). The project will result in an
FAR of 1.5 to 1, which is consistent with the AMF designation. The project consists
of a new three-story structure used for offices on the lower two floors, with three
residences on the upper floor. Parking would be provided in an underground garage
(excluding the AME Zion Church).
The proposal would require the relocation of the two historic resources currently
located at 802 and 806 Bryant Street. These structures would be relocated to newly
created DHS properties at the comer of Bryant and Channing Avenue and will be
restored in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for
Rehabilitation. The AME Zion Church would be restored, with a small sized rear
addition, in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation and used as offices. The French Laundry building (260 Homer
Avenue) would be developed as a part of the larger mixed use project but the
existing structure would be retained in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
Block D: The properties currently occupied by the Urgent Care Clinic and
associated parking will be developed in a manner consistent with the DHS
regulations. Shared driveways, permitted by the Plan, may be required to provide
access to parking for the two historic structures that face Channing Avenue (260-70
Channing Avenue).
Block E: The DHS-designated properties located on Channing Avenue between
Kipling Street and Waverley Street are proposed to be subdivided into four parceis
and developed in a manner consistent with the DHS regulations.
Block F: The DHS-designated properties located on Channing Avenue between
Bryant Street and Scott Street are proposed to be subdivided into three parcels and
developed in a manner consistent with all other DHS regulations.
C. CITY PARTICIPATION
There are three significant elements of the Plan that require City participation and
expenditure. These are the acquisition, development and maintenance of a new neighborhood
CMR:427:99 Page 23 of 35
park, the acquisition of the Roth Building as a public facility, and the acquisition of land for
affordable housing. Below is a discussion of the City’s participation in each of these
elements and an identification of the potential costs associated with the items. Following this
discussion is an overview of the possible funding sources for these acquisitions. More
information on potential sources of funding is presented in the Resource Impact section of
this report.
1. Neighborhood Park and Roth Building
The staff proposal for a 2.41-acre public facility includes a 0.75-acre dedication from
Summerhill Homes, assignment of a leasehold for a 0.11-acre site on Waverley Street, and
purchase of 1.56 acres of land by the City. The City participation involves a purchase of land
for the Roth Building from PAMF. The City would also purchase 0.85 acres of land from
SHH, to be reserved as a portfolio asset pending development of a neighborhood park. Staff
has estimated that the cost of these acquisitions would be approximately $7.8 million. Either
the City’s General Fund reserves or a loan from a utility fund reserve would be called upon
for the initial acquisition. The land purchased could be held as an asset in reserve for future
park development. In order to minimize the City’s actual financial exposure, the land
purchased would be held "undedicated" so that it could be re-sold for development or other
purposes if acquisition and development funding does not become available. Sources of
funding include the sale of Scott Park, if approved by Council and the voters; development
impact fees to be enacted at a future date; and other revenue sources that need further
discussion. These include, for example, a special tax district (Mello Roos), state bonds and
general obligation bonds. It should be noted that as a result of the development of the
existing and new SOFA sites, one-time transfer tax revenues and modest net, new revenues
will be realized.
2. Affordable Housing
The staff proposal for a 1.23-acre affordable housing site includes a 0.75-acre irrevocable
offer to dedicate from SHH and purchase of an option on 0.48 acres of land by the City.
Staffhas estimated that the cost of these acquisitions would be approximately $2.2 million,
which would be paid for by the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund and!or CDBG funds.
Alternatively, if City Council does not pursue acquisition of the additional 0.35-acre
properties currently occupied by 830, 840, and 846 Bryant Street, the City would acquire an
irrevocable offer to dedicate 0.9-acre site for affordable housing. In this scenario, the City
would have to acquire 0.15 acres of land, estimated to be a cost of approximately $700,000.
This land is also anticipated to be acquired by use of the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund
and/or CDBG funds.
3. Transaction Specifics
In order to implement the transaction, the City, PAMF and SHH would enter into a
development agreement (DA). The DA approach has been used for PAMF/SOFA re-
development since 1991. The DA would grant SHH a ten-year vested right to build
CMR:427:99 Page 24 of 35
(although the actual construction schedule is much shorter) in exchange for several
extraordinary benefits, including primarily the dedication of 1.5 acres of land. The land is
conservatively valued at $7.8 million.
The transactional specifics would include the following elements, which will be incorporated
into a development agreement:
¯SHH and PAMF dedicate 0.85 acres of land to be held for park uses, subject to title
and hazardous material investigation clearances.
¯SHH will remove all buildings on Block B (with the exception of the Roth Building
and Birge Clark wing additions (circa 1951)).
SHH and PAMF irrevocably offer to dedicate 0.75 acres of land for BMR housing,
subject to title and hazardous material investigation clearances (The BMR land
acquisition would be structured as an option so that title would pass directly from
SHHfPAMF to the successful responder to a City RFP for BMR housing
development).
City of Palo Alto purchasesthe SHH BMR site, park sites and Roth Building property
immediately after dedication (within the first quarter of calendar year 2000).
At the City’s request, SHH will remove the Research Building and associated parking
on Block C, and City will reimburse SHH its actual costs in an amount not to exceed
$250,000.
City of Palo Alto receives all property evaluations (e.g. Phase One environmental,
title reports, etc.) from PAMF and SHH by December 21, 1999. City of Palo Alto
maintains the right to conduct additional environmental investigation if deemed
necessary. Any identified clean-up on the properties to be purchased by the City of
Palo Alto shall be completed by PAMF or SHH.
BOARD AND COMMISSION REVIEW
The Historic Resources Board, Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission and
Public Arts Commission reviewed and commented on the WG’s first Draft Plan (dated
December 12, 1998) in February and March 1999 and a synopsis of these comments is
provided in Attachment J. Based upon the comments received, it was determined that
subsequent drafts of the Plan would be prepared to insure the WG’s final recommendations
were capsulated. To insure that each board and commission had an opportunity to review
the final WG Plan, staff requested the ARB, HRB and Planning Commission provide
comments. These meetings occurred in June 1999. A summary of their discussion is
included below.
CMR:427:99 Page 25 of 35
Historic Resources Board
The HRB supported the efforts of the WG and staff,
comments/recommendations at its June 16, 1999 meeting:
and had the following
¯Program CF-3 be further modified to more clearly state that the use of the Williams
House be consistent with the preservation of the gardens.
¯Additional protection measures are suggested for properties that are potentially eligible
for the California Historic Register.
¯Allow relocation of historic resources as a preservation strategy, with relocation within
SOFA to maintain context.
¯Tiering of density levels for multi-family zoning/land use that could create a more
gradual change in density from DHS to AMF.
New construction should be compatible with existing uses, specifically with reference to
Bryant Street, Homer Avenue and Waverley Street. The desired outcome is preservation
of the historic context.
¯Staff should review the Sanborn maps to provide an overview of the context of the
neighborhood development pattern prior to PAMF facilities.
¯One board member suggested the Planned Community Zone process be eliminated.
Architectural Review Board
The ARB had the following comments/recommendations at its June 24, 1999 meeting, this
summary has been organized into subject areas as detailed:
Housing
¯ Supportive of affordable housing in the area. Supportive of priority for affordable
housing being given to civil servants, teachers, etc. and perhaps people who can
demonstrate that they can walk to Downtown.
¯Suggested further study of detached second units on DHS needed in relation to adjacent
structures. Recommended further study on DHS back-to-back dwellings.
Circulation/Transportation
¯Encouraged the completion of a design competition to aid in
undercrossing (suggested narrower tunnel with trestles for tracks).
the design of the
CMR:427:99 Page 26 of 35
¯Support two-way conversion of Homer and Channing Avenue.
Park/Open Space:
¯ Support park location but recommended more study of linkages at mid-block on
Homer/Channing Avenue and encouraged the use of underground parking. Park
residents, other uses, etc could share this parking.
¯Suggested neighborhood and competitions be used to develop recommended park.
Design Guidelines/Standards:
¯ Encouraged design guidelines that allow diverse designs.
¯One member suggested the main PAMF block have design guidelines of its own (i.e.
border between PF/AMF and pedestrian linkages with Williams House/Scott Park).
Other
¯ Supportive of phasing of the Plan. Use lessons learned from Phase I to aid Phase II - in
particular study mid-block massing and intersections.
¯Suggested the study of other possible alternatives for the use of the Roth Building if
PAMF clinic does not happen.
Expressed reservations about allowing the Planned Community Zone process to continue;
prefer an exception process with specific parameters.
A minimum size of tree to be preserved in the Plan Area should be established, regardless
of species.
Encouraged more study of transition from park to AMF (finger of building to be allowed
into open space) and exploration of whether childcare center could be moved to abut the
park; suggested child care center be near open space.
Recommended Waverley Street frontage be carefully studied in regard to
landscaping/street trees/pedestrian environment.
Recommended that one of the redwoods at Williams House be maintained.
Planning Commission
The Planning Commission had the following comments/recommendations at its June 23,
1999 meeting. These comments have been organized into subject areas:
CMR:427:99 Page 27 of 35
Ho ~l s i vl g
¯Fifteen percent BMR contribution should be pursued.
Consideration should be given to a lower minimum density in AMF or an exception be
allowed to minimum densities or another AMF designation be introduced that covers~the
mid-range density (20-30 units/acre).
¯Priority should be given to civil servants (particularly firefighters, police) and teachers
in any affordable housing project.
¯Proposed DHS on Waverley Street is disconnected with the rest of the Plan.
¯Housing units desired by the Plan should be delivered as part of the development of the
Mixed-Use area (generally west of Ramona Street).
¯Housing component should be increased in place of non-residential component/uses
allowed in the MU districts.
Circulation/Transportation
¯ Goal of the CAP should be to calm traffic on Homer/Channing Avenue, and the
appropriate method for achieving this goal should be further studied.
¯Scott Street extension should be eliminated.
¯Supported the proposal for an under-crossing of the Caltrain tracks.
¯Consideration should be given to altering Policy T-5 (page 37) to soften language,
adding "where appropriate" for requiring on-site parking.
Park/Open Space
¯ Supported the acquisition of as much park land as possible.
Some members supported the open space being broken up into smaller areas and
distributed throughout the AMF residential districts - although these members would like
largest portion of the park on the main block nearest Waverley Street.
¯Suggested that community gardens be encouraged in the place of"passive" landscaping.
¯Scott Park sale would be supported to get larger contiguous open space.
¯Suggested that a parking lot not be located on the main block.
CMR:427:99 Page 28 of 35
¯Acknowledged funding problems associated with such a large park.
Design Guidelines/Standards
¯Suggested some edits to guidelines for AMF:
Page 96, 2. l(a) should delete "reinterpretation of the styles" and include "massing,"
so that last sentence reads, "Contemporary styles which are compatible in massing,
style, color, articulation and form are also encouraged."
Page 97, 2.5(a) delete "to add variety and" and replace with "to".
Some Commissioners suggested that the design guidelines could be less specific and
detail a set of performance-based goals.
¯The City Council should direct staff to review the SOFA Plan within a specified
timeframe (perhaps 18 months) after adoption.
Other
¯Limit protected trees to those currently covered under the protected tree ordinance and
don’t mandate that they be preserved.
¯HRB should not be involved in any design review of new homes.
Support for flexibility in the CAP, whether with a modified Planned Community process
or Major Exception.
Clarification of the status of PAMF non-conforming uses per the development agreement
should be provided.
Public Arts Commission
The Public Arts Commission, at its February 18, 1999 meeting, had the following comments:
¯Murals at the Roth Building should be preserved and attention be directed to the murals
through appropriate signage.
¯Public art should be incorporated into the design of the park.
¯Public art should be incorporated into the design of the utility wall at the Alma substation.
Public art should be required in development standards for the Mixed-Use areas.
CMR:427:99 Page 29 of 35
RESOURCE IMPACT
The tentative agreement reached with PAMF/SHH is outlined in the table below and includes
costs for achieving both the staff-recommended Plan and a plan similar to that recommended
by the WG (i.e., a 2.0-acre park located on Waverley Street). The table outlines the cost
associated with land acquisition under a variety of proposed scenarios.
The agreement gives the City a number of options for selecting an affordable housing site.
The 1.23-acre affordable housing site may be reduced in size by excluding the purchase of
several properties located on Bryant Street. These alternatives are described in the following
table.
Staff Recommendation
2.41-acre public facility
(park on Homer Avenue, including Roth Building)
1.23-acre Affordable Housing site
(includes all Bryant properties (830 (duplex), 840
and 846 Bryant)
BMR Less 830 Bryant
Reduction duplex (0.06 acres)
Alternatives Less 830 & 840
Bryant (0.19 acres)
Less 830, 840 & 846
Bryant (0.33 acres)
Waverley Street Park Orientation
2.0-acre public facility
(park on Waverley Street, excludes Roth Building)
1.23-acre Affordable Housing site
(includes All Bryant properties (830 (duplex), 840
and 846 Bryant)
BMR Less 830 Bryant
Reduction duplex (0.06 acres)
Alternatives Less 830 & 840
Bryant (0.19 acres)
Less 830, 840 & 846
Bryant (0.33 acres)
$10,000,000
-$280,000
Net 9,720,000
-$840,OO0
Net 9,160,000
-$1,400,000
Net 8,600,000
$8,400,000
-$280,000
Net 8,120,000
-$84O,OO0
Net 7,560,000
-$1,400,000
Net 7,900,000
Financing Options
Staff has researched a number of financing options to pay for the land acquisitions.
Recommended funding sources include the following:
CMR:427:99 Page 30 of 35
Sale of Scott Park. Staff recommends that Scott Park be sold in order to fund
acquisition of land for new public facilities, including a park in the SOFA area.
This action requires the City Council to conduct a protest hearing and, assuming
Council decides to send it to the voters after the protest hearing, voter approval to
"un-dedicate" the park land.
Development impact fee. Staff recommends that a development impact fee be
implemented in the SOFA area on new residential units in the area, which is
projected to range between 245 and 450 units. However, an estimated 112 units
are anticipated to be built on PAMF property, whose park obligation will be
fulfilled by the offer of parkland. Therefore, the remaining properties (133 to 398
units) would be required to pay the development impact fee. Staff’s preliminary
analysis shows that an impact fee of between $10,000 and $20,000 can be
justified. When compared to other cities, the fee is somewhat higher than similar
fees in other cities, due to the high cost of land acquisition in the area. The fee
proposal will remain preliminary only until additional background analysis can be
completed.
In addition to these recommended funding sources, a variety of other options are available
to cover any shortfall between the cost of acquiring land and the revenue generated by the
sale of Scott Park and development impact fees. These alternatives include:
General obligation bonds. The City can approach its citizens for approval of new
taxes for new facilities. With future projects in mind, staff suggests viewing the
acquisition and development of PAMF land within the wider context of other new
projects, such as the Library Master Plan and Public Safety Building.
One-time Real Property Transfer Tax. The CAP Ordinance requires Council to
consider fiscal impacts. Staff notes that the General Fund will be positively
impacted by the real property transfer tax generated by the sale from PAMF to
SHH and fi’om SHH to future homeowners. Staff estimates this one-time amount
to be about $500,000.
Tax revenue. Staff has had the CAP fiscal analysis updated. It now shows the
project will result in an a.fter-expense, positive annual income to the City of about
$50,000 per year.
State bonds or grants. From time to time, state bonds and grant funding may be
available for the acquisition and improvement of parkland, but these sources are
in short supply. Recent legislative approvals include the passage of Assembly Bill
18 (Clean Water, Clean Air, Coastal Protection and Safe Neighborhood Parks
Bond Act), that places a $2.1 billion bond measure on the March 2000 ballot to
CMR:427:99 Page 31 of 35
finance state and local park and resource improvement. This bill could grant Palo
Alto approximately $200,000.
Special tax district (Mello Roos). The City Council may want to consider the
feasibility of a special tax to provide the balance of funding necessary to
reimburse the General Fund for acquisition of the 2.0-acre park and the Roth
Building. The staff looked at several potential areas for this assessment district,
including a radius of one-eighth, one-quarter and one-half mile of the SOFA area.
The number of existing residential units in these areas is 826, 1,464 and 4,705
respectively. The amount paid by these residents will vary depending on the
negotiated sales price of land acquired, revenue from other funding sources, and
the chosen assessment boundaries. Further study is needed before specific staff
recommendations can be made. A special tax requires two-thirds approval of the
voters.
Staff would return to Council with a detailed funding plan for park construction
(approximately $720,000), Roth Building renovation and upgrade costs (approximately $3.0
million) and the annual maintenance costs for the park site (approximately $10,000 per year)
at a later date.
Neighborhood Park & Roth Building
To acquire a 2.41-acre public facility, the City would have to have funds available either to
purchase the land or to make a down payment on the land acquisition. Until a long-term
financing structure is in place, staff recommends that a temporary loan be made from General
Fund or Utility Fund reserves for the purchase. The fund making the loan could be repaid
principal plus interest at a rate equivalent to the City’s portfolio.
Alternatively, a 2.0-acre park fronting on Waverley Street similar to that proposed by the
WG, could be purchased in the same manner as described above. Without the cost of
acquiring the Roth Building, the initial City expenditure could be reduced by approximately
$1.6 million (see table above).
The use of either the General Fund or Utility Fund reserves would supply funding until such
time as Scott Park is approved to be sold and revenue from impact fees on new residential
construction in SOFA are received (excluding PAMF owned properties).
Affordable Housing
The City has resources available in the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund (approximately $3
million) that would cover the cost of acquiring the additional 0.48 acres of land to create a
1.23-acre affordable housing site. The anticipated cost of this land is approximately $2.2
million. The staff anticipates that a Request for Proposals (RFP) will be issued for
development of the site and that funding for construction may be available through the
CMR:427:99 Page 32 of 35
remaining resources in the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund or with Community
Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG).
The table above identifies options for reducing the size of the affordable housing site and
thereby reducing the expenditure from the City Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund and/or
CDBG funds. Reductions could range from $280,000 to $1.4 million if less land was
acquired for this purpose.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The SOFA Coordinated Area Plan was prepared as required by Program L-22 of the
Comprehensive Plan, but also relates to many other Comprehensive Plan policies and
programs. Throughout the chapters of the CAP, the relevant sections of the Comprehensive
Plan are referenced in the margins and a complete listing of all the related Comprehensive
Plan policies and programs is contained in Appendix E (volume 2) of the WG Draft Plan.
TIMELINE
Following City Council review and direction, the first reading of the SOFA Coordinated
Area Plan is scheduled for January 10, 2000.
If the City Council directs staffto prepare a development agreement based on Summerhill
Homes’ proposal, the Planning Commission will hold a special meeting, now tentatively
scheduled for December 15, 1999. Following Planning Commission review, the City
Council would hold the first reading of the implementation ordinance and the development
agreement on January 10, 2000 with the second reading tentatively scheduled for January 24,
2000.
Following City Council adoption, the following next steps would take place:
1.Within a month of final Council action
¯Notice of Determination on the FEIR filed.
¯EIR mitigation measures included in final Plan and monitoring program set up.
¯Phase II commences.
¯Development agreement between City, PAMF and Summerhill Homes completed.
Within Six Months of Council Action
¯Enabling ordinance for fee schedule and application forms for Coordinated
Development Permit created.
CMR:427:99 Page 33 of 35
¯Report to City Council on a financing package for land acquisitions in SOFA.
¯RFP for Affordable Housing Development prepared.
¯RFP for park design and improvements prepared.
¯ISTEA grant for railroad under-crossing secured.
¯Phase II completed and public hearings conducted.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for the Draft Plan, and
distributed in December 1998. A public hearing on the DEIR was held and closed on March
1 O, 1999 by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended that the
DEIR be certified as adequate, having analyzed all potential impacts in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The public comment period on the DEIR
ended on March 26, 1999. A Final EIR was prepared and distributed to City Council
members and other interested parties on November 17, 1999. It included responses to
comments received on the DEIR. The Final EIR will be endorsed and certified by the City
Council prior to adoption of the Plan and approval of the CAP.
The DEIR identified two unavoidable impacts - school overcrowding and park funding -
resulting from the CAP. With regard to the impact relating to school overcrowding, recent
State legislation has stipulated that school impact fees are full and complete mitigation for
school overcrowding generated by new development. Therefore, the Final EIR has been
amended to delete the unavoidable impact on school overcrowding. The DEIR also
incorrectly identified an unavoidable impact on park funding. This impact should have been
identified as a potential impact on the provision of open space, as the analysis related to the
potential lack of funding for acquisition of a park. As discussed earlier, the new population
possible in the area would generate a need for 1.93 acres of park. The DEIR identified an
unavoidable impact if this acreage of park was not acquired due to a lack of available
funding. However, if the City Council adopts a plan that would result in a 2.0 acre park, as
recommended by staff, no open space unavoidable impact will result.
The DEIR was based on the December 1998 draft of the Plan. Staff concluded that re-
circulation of the DEIR was not necessary as no new or more severe significant
environmental impacts resulted from the changes made by the WG for the June 1999 Plan.
PREPARED BY:Ray Hashimoto, Assistant Planning Official
Phil Dascombe, Planner
CMR:427:99 Page 34 of 35
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:f~:~~
G. EDWARD
Director of Planning Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Manager
ATTACHlVIENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
Attachment J:
WG Plan Concept (dated June 9, 1999)
Planning Commission verbatim minutes of June 23, 1999 meeting
HRB verbatim minutes of June 16, 1999 meeting
ARB action minutes of June 24, 1999 meeting
Staff-recommended SOFA Plan and Plan Concept
Policy Framework for Coordinated Area Plan
Timetable and schedule of entire Coordinated Area Plan Process
Table of differences between WG and staff Plan
PAMF Property Map
Synopsis of March 1999 Boards and Commission meeting on First Draft
Plan
CC.SOFA Working Group
SOFA Interested Parties
Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Planning Commission
Public Arts Commission
CMR:427:99 Page 35 of 35
DESIGN CHARACTER
All new development is strongly
encouraged to be consistent with
the design guidelines requiring
compatible massing with
surrounding neighborhood,
pedestrian scale design and visual
interest at the ground floor
HERITAGE TREES
Existing mature tree canopy will
be preserved and enhanced
WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD
Design guidelines strongly
encourage pedestrian oriented
features. These include
pedestrian access enhanced by
street improvements, pedestrian
oriented signage, railroad
crossing, crosswalk improvements
and landscaping.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Encourage reuse and allow
alterations to historic structures in
compliance with CEQA and Palo
Alto Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
Allow parking reductions of up to
25% for historic preservation of
designated historic buildings
Specific site plan direction includes:
-support restoration of Roth building
to its original form
-encourage restoration of historic
homes on Bryant St for residential
use
-encourage reuse of AME Zion
church when restored
-allow relocation of historic
resources
RELATIONSHIP TO
DOWNTOWN W
Encourage
neighborhood serving
commercial uses along
Homer and Emerson
Streets to support the
vitality of Downtown
uses.
AUTOMOBILE AND
OTHER SERVICE
USES w
Existing auto uses may
remain but any new
uses may only be
located on High or
Alma Streets.
Responsibility for
compatibility with
existing development is
placed on new
development sites.
TRANSIT/BICYCLE ACCESSIBIIJTY
Promote trip reduction through encouragement of higher
density development in close proximity to multi-modal center.
Support proposed bike route to new undercrossing
Cowper St
VYa~v_ez[ey_St
High St
H
PF
PF
HOUSING
-DETACHED HOUSING ON
SMALL LOTS (DHS)
Single family detached homes
on approx. 5,000 SF or smaller
lots with incentives for second
units. Moderate density (8-20
un/ac) located to buffer existing
residential neighborhoods from
higher intensity development.
Approx. housing yield of 20-25
primary homes and up to 10
second units.
-ATTACHED MULTIPLE FAMILY
HOUSING (AMF)
Apartment/condominiums to
provide more housing near
transit and services and
opportunity to accommodate a
variety of housing types. 30-50
units per acre resulting in a
likely yield of up to
approximately 90 units. FAR not
to exceed 1.5.
-AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Provide affordable housing
within AMF or MU-1.
Encourage location of 1.5 acres
of affordable housing on the
north eastern corner of Bryant
and Channing. Use in lieu fees
for Below Market Rate (BMR)
housing from development
within the Plan area to acquire
and construct housing
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
INCLUDING HOUSING (MU-1
AND MU-2) -k
Allow densities up to 50 units
per acre and/or total FAR up to
2.5. Parking primarily
underground. Anticipated
housing yield of up to 160 units
accompanied by approx.
150,000 SF of office space.
Reductions in required parking
for historic structures to
preserve character of the area
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
-NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
Recommend a 2.5 acre
neighborhood park
bounded by
Homer/Channing/Waverley.
Retain 0.4 acre Scott Park
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
Convert Homer and
Channing Avenue and a
portion of High Street from
one-way to two-way traffic
flow in association with
addressing the issues raised
by Whole Foods and the
Channing House.
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
Construct a well designed undercrossing of the railroad tracks at Homer
Avenue to provide pedestrian/bicycle access from Downtown and SOFA
to Urban Lane, transit hubs, Stanford University, shopping center, etc.
ECONOMIC oFEAolBILITY
Uses proposed include an examination of economic feasibility to avoid
potential impacts of vacant and underutilized facilities
-CHILD CARE FACILITY
Develop childcare center for
50 or more children on site
leased from PAMF at corner
of Ramona and Channing
-OTHER OPEN SPACE
Encourage development
that includes publicly
accessible plazas and open
space opportunities
To be implemented in Phase 2
SOFA SPECIFIC LAND USE/ZONING DESIGNATIONS
DHS
AMF
MU-1
MU-2
Detached Houses on Small Lots (8-20 un/ac)
Attached Multiple Family (30-50 un/ac)
Moderate Density Mixed Use Combining District
High Density Mixed Use Combining District
JUNE 9,1999
Graphic prepared by Alison Kendall, Tanja Mai & Philip Dascombe
200 400
EXISTING CITY OF PALO ALTO ZONING DESIGNATIONS
R-2
RM-30
RM--40
PF
Low Density Residential District (7-14 un/ac)
Medium Density Residential District (15-30 un/ac)
High Density Residential District (31-40 un/ac)
Public Facilities/Park
Figure A:
PLAN CONCEPT OF THE SOFA WORKING GROUP IS 0 F
Coordinated
Area Plan
>
ATTACHMENT B
1
2
3
4
5
67
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
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16
June 23~i999
SPECIAL MEETING - 7:00 PM
City Council Chambers Room
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL:
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M.
Commissioners:
Owen Byrd, Chairman
Kathy Schmidt, Vice-Chair
Bern Beecham
Annette Bialson
Phyllis Cassel
Jon Schink- absent
Patrick Butt
Staff."
Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official
Ariel Calonne, City Attorney
Ed Gawf Planning Director
Philip Dascombe, Planner
Ray Hashimoto, Asst. Planning Official
Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer
Chairman Byrd: I’d like to call this Special Meeting of the Palo Alto Planning Commission
for Wednesday, June 23, 1999, to order. Will the Secretary please call the role. Okay, six
present.
The first item on our agenda tonight is Oral Communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any time 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 Commission.
I have no card for Oral Communications. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to
speak to something other than the noticed SOFA Coordinated Area Plan? Seeing none, we
will close Oral Communications.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS.
We have no Agenda Changes, Additions, or Deletions.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
~2
43
44
45
46
We have no minutes to approve.
O-NT’IN1SH~D BUSINESS.
Public Hearings. None.
No unfinished business which brings us to New Business.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings.
1. SOFA Coordinated Area Plan: Review oft.he Working Group’s draft of the SOFA
Coordinated Area Plan prepared and distributed on behalf of the SOFA Working Group.
The Draft Plan provides policies,programs, development standards and design guidelines for
an approximately 50-acre area generally bounded by Forest and Addison Avenues and Alma
and Kipling Streets. This item is tentatively scheduled for review by the Historic Resources
Board on June 2, 1999, the Architectural Review Board and June 3, 1999 and the City
Council on July 26, 1999.
2. Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for SOFA Coordinated Area
Plan: Planning Commission discussion and recommendation on the DEIR prepared for the
SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. A public hearing was held and closed on this item at the
March 10, 1999 Planning Commission meeting and the public comment period on the DEIR
ended on March 26, 1999.
Tonight we have a Public Hearing on the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. We will also
consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report supporting the SOFA Coordinated Area
Plan. Commissioner Beecham.
Commissioner Beecham: I am sorry to advise the Commission and the public that I will not
be participating on SOFA tonight. A client of mine, in the past two months, has bought a
property near SOFA, not quite in it but close to it. In consultations with the City Attorney’s
office it seem appropriate that I therefore not participate. So I hope you have a good
meeting.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you. In addition, Commissioner Schink asked me to state for the
record that he too has a conflict of interest and therefore is not present tonight.
Let’s move one with the Staff report.
Mr. Ed Gawf, Planning Director: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Eric Riel, our Chief Planning
Official will make the Staff presentation. Eric has worked on this as the project manager
and we are very pleased to be able to bring this to you tonight after about 13 months of
working with the Working Group and Staffs effort.
Mr. Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official: Thank you Ed. I’m going to briefly describe the
process and talk about the EIR and the phasing of the plan. Then I am going to ask one or
two members of the Working Group to make a presentation regarding the final plan. After
A:PC0526Minutes Page 2
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
that we have a computer model that we want to show you to try to give you an idea of what
we’d like to do with Phase II. Lastly I’ll make some concluding remarks.
This process began in September of 1997. City Council created 13 objectives in a policy
framework. The Working Group has been meeting since that time on a monthly basis.
Sometimes we even had two meetings in a month. I believe there have been 15 to 18
meetings over this entire process. As a result of the process three draft plans were prepared.
The first.was-distributed.inDecember. If~youx_e~zall;.~at ha~..v.arious...,portio.ns missing, i.e.,
the Implementation chapter, and a couple of other modifications that needed to be done.
That draft went through the review process by the HRB, ARB as well as this Commission.
As a result of a lot of the comments that we received Staff drafted a May plan. Since that
time, at the March Planning Commission Meeting, you took public comment on the EIR and
closed public comment. We have again provided a copy of the DEIR in your packet. Staffs
intent is to take the comments that we’ve received, which we believe are about 10 to 12
comments, and the final EIR will be completed within the next two weeks. We expect to
get it out in early July for the ten day review period. That will go to Council on July 26,
1999.
After we prepared the May plan we wanted to be sure that the May plan represented what
the Working Group’s final recommendations were. So we had two meetings on the 19th and
26th. As a result of those meetings, some changes were made to the map as well as the text.
Staff wanted to be sure that we accurately represented what the final product of the Working
Group was so we created the June 9 plan which you have before you this evening. That
would be the actual plan that will go forward to Council on July 26th. Actually three
products will go to Council: the June 9th plan, Boards’ and Commission’s comments,
suggestions and alternatives, and Staffs comments, suggestions and alternatives to that plan.
Again, that is scheduled for July 26.
As I indicated, the Draft EIR discussion was completed on March 10th and in July the final
EIR will be coming out. One of the things that Staffhad recommended was a phasing of the
plan. If you’ll look up on the overhead you’ll see a blue line that goes through essentially the
mid-part of the plan or Ramona Street. A lot of the comments we received indicated that the
phase II or the bottom portion of the plan had not been adequately tested. There were some
concerns about the intensity and the densities proposed in the area. So what Staff is
suggesting, and we’re going to go to take to Council in July, is to ask for overall input in
terms of the overall plan area which is 50 acres. Discuss and attempt to finalize phase I
which is that part east of Ramona. Phase II will commence after we have completed with
phase I. We expect to start immediately after phase I, reconvene the Working Group or a
portion of the Working Group, and to use some computer modeling as a planning tool to
identify various types of intensifies and densities in that area. To educate in terms of what
the potential build out could be for that area. We would expect that phase II would start
some time in September and then be completed in December. Then go before the Boards
and Commissions for review and comment in early 2000.
That basically concludes my overview. What I want to do is turn it over to Sarah Cane who
is going to speak on behalf of the Working Group. Then after that Mr. Dascombe of the
A:PC0526Minutes Page 3
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning Staff will go over briefly the computer model and then I have some brief closing
comments on behalf of Staff.
Ms. Sarah Cane, Working Group:. As Eric said, we did think that as this process has gone
on.it has gotten bigger and more difficult to deal with, more complex. I don’t think anybody
really understood at the beginning how enormous this task was. Also, I don’t think there is
anybody on the Planning Staff now who was there at the beginning. So there has been so
much-.ehange and de~velopment through the tim~e_~but !.think~.th~.t we’.ye all agreed that it
makes good sense to divide the plan into two sections. Largely because it has been two
years into the process now and we all recognize that the clinic needs to move ahead and go
ahead and sell their land. We also have agreements on that part of the plan, the phase I part,
the top part of the map. So we do want to look much more closely at the MU-1 and MU-2
areas and do some good research. So that is one thing.
I’d like to just delineate a couple of the changes that we’ve made since the last time I spoke
to you. That’s one big one, the Phase I and Phase lI. Another change is the two-way street
formation. Right now we have the one-way streets and we’ve really done a lot of thought
and research on changing it back. We do feel that it would be appropriate .to re-instate two-
way streets onl.y after we have solved the problems sufficiently for Whole Foods. We see
that as the first priority. If we can come to an agreement with Whole Foods that they are
satisfied with then we do recommend that we have two-way streets there.
Another changes is based largely on the comments of you, the Commission, and the ARB
and HRB. I would like to insert here that I personally feel that we learned so much from the
commentary that we got from the Commission, the ARB and the HRB. In the future, if you
have coordinated area plans again, it would be very prudent to have more input from
Commissions and Boards early on in the process. I think that- was one reason why we
needed to make some pretty dramatic changes. We did decide that it would be better to
have denser housing on the large clinic block. So as you can see, the large clinic block now
has attached multiple family for an acre and a half on the Bryant side and a 2.5-acre park on
the Waverley side. This is in the interest of more housing and lower priced housing and
more open space because of the need in the neighborhood for open space that has been
ongoing and the increased density. We feel that open space is a high priority. We like the
idea of getting rid of the street acrossthe middle and using that as open space.
In the other area there are some other smaller changes. Another larger one has to do with
the design guidelines and the design process. I don’t feel very qualified to speak about that
so I’m going to turn it over to Steve Pierce.
Mr. Steve Pierce, 209 Cowper, Palo Alto, Working Group Member: As Sarah said, we gave
a good deal of consideration to the standards and guidelines that were developed as part of
the plan because we have some new zoning classifications with AMF and the DHS.
Looking at those particularly, not to get embroiled in the details but, what we saw initially
was sort of heavy on fairly complex standards and the Working Group felt that to be lighter
on standards and more complete on guidelines would be a more appropriate balance. I had
an opportunity to work with Staff on that and I think they were very helpful and very
A:PC0526Minutes Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
responsive.. I think we’ve hashed out something that was really in the intent of what the
Working Group wanted. So I think we are very satisfied with the way that appears in the
most recent working plan.
Chairman Byrd: Are there other members of the Working Group who will participate in
this?
Mr. Riel: ..Yes, TomShannon from Palo. Alto Medical. F0.undati0n wo.uld ...lkke to make some
comments.
Mr. Tom Shannon, 256 Kellog Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening Chairman Byrd and
members of the Commission. I’m with the firm, Enshalla Inc., and along with my business
partner, Gerry Steinberg, we are the property consultants to the Medical Foundation. We
have represented PAMF as one of 14 participants on the Coordinated Area Plan. Tonight I
would like to briefly share with you our comments regarding the proposed area plan before
yOU.
I’ve included these comments in a prepared written memorandum that I am going to turn
over to the clerk for your reference, then I’ll briefly discuss them. Before I begin, I think it’s
important to say in a lot of these public hearings we deal with the controversial issues. I for
one feel there is a lot of good in that plan and it’s not really going to be highlighted in these
public hearings but hopefully it will get moved to the final plan.
In the interest of being brief let me just read through my five points that I’d like to talk to
you about. Our first point concerns the density in the AMF zone. I’ve spoken to some of
you and relayed that we would ask the Commission to make a recommendation to Council
that the plan allow for zoning exceptions to be made to the required minimum density in the
AMF zone. There are instances where the minimum density of 30 units per acre makes it
almost impossible to build a marketable project on existing parcets in SOFA that are
substantially smaller than one acre.
My second point echoes the sentiments of Steve Pierce. We believe, as he does, that the
design standards are extremely complex and extremely detailed. We’d ask the Commission
recommend to Council that the scope of the design standards be reduced to include more
basic elements like floor area ratios, parking, setbacks, and height limitations. Then allow
those design guidelines, which are written very well and we believe embody the spirit of the
plan, to actually be the guides for the architects that come in and submit projects to the City.
Third point, consider retaining a modified PC process that would afford the City the
oppommity to entertain some creative designs. We have several parcels that are fairly
unique and it’s a unique oppommity in this location for an architect to do some very creative
designs. In our opinion, the PC process is not really the problem. It is actually the resulting
project as approved that matters. We would encourage retention of some modified process
that actually protects the density goals of the plan. So it is not the density part of the PC
process that we’re taking issue with, it is the fact that we feel it affords the City more
creativity.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 5
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
Our fourth point concerns trees and vegetation. As we all know the City already has a
heritage tree ordinance. The plan calls for additional species to be elevated to heritage
status. We believe this would only further impede the development and restoration of many
of the historic structures and achieving the plan’s overall goal of creating more housing.
The fifth point is to prioritize the plan’s goals. As you’ll be reading the plan, the
.Commission and Council we think.needs to take a.l.ook at the. competing priorities. The
plan’s goals are laudable but they are also numerous. We:re got a desire for more housing, a
desire for more open space, a desire for more child care, we have preservation of historic
structures and a possibility of expensive tree and vegetation preservation. When you lay all
of these goals on every parcel in this Phase I, conflicts arise. These competing priorities
need to be weighted and some must be sacrificed, in our opinion, to achieve the more
primary goals.
The last point is we believe that the plan needs to stipulate that all property owners receive
fair and equitable treatment. No one property owner should bear a disproportionate share of
the burden to create the desired public benefits. We are in agreement with the goals of the
plan that show that the community at large must collectively be willing to pay for them.
In closing, on behalf of the Foundation I think it is important to recognize the time and
tremendous effort that Staff has put in and extended to us as a committee in getting us here
tonight. Thank you very much.
Chairman Byrd: I think we have one other presentation by a Working Group member.
Larry.
Mr. Larry Hassett, Working Group Member: Sarah mentioned the two-way street with
Homer and Channing and Whole Foods issues. I know that Channing House also had some
issues with two-ways streets. I want to make sure, if there is anybody in the audience t~om
Channing House, that their concerns too were to be addressed before the two-way change
took affect.
I’d also like to just state that allow the PC process in phase I was discussed and the Working
Group was pretty well split right down the middle. Most people from the neighborhoods
and stuff recommended against PC. The developers and business community tended to
support PCs in phase I. I just wanted to let you know that the Working Group is really kind
of split on that. We heard from HRB and they had recommended highly that phase I not be
allowed to have PCs. Thank you.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you.
Mr. Riel: While Phil is loading the computer model for the screen let me go on. One of the
portions of the plan was to look at the feasibility of railroad crossing. We have a model in
front of Phil here. There was a quite extensive study done in terms of crossing the railroad.
The one that was recommended was the under-crossing which is essentially the larger model
A:PC0526Minutes Page 6
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
here. The smaller, model on the other table is the version of the over-crossing which as I
indicated was not recommended. This year the Planning Department, basically the
Transportation Division, did file an application for Ice-tea funds and out of all those that
were granted we would have been the next in line if they had additional money available.
So we didn’t get it this year but we feel that our chances are very, very good in the next year
to get that funding. The funding of the application request was for approximately $1.9
million although the total cost is $2.5. There are already dedicated funds available for the
under-crossing... So I just .wanted.to.point that out .to~y.o..u..~. I’U turn it.,,Qver.to Phil now.
Mr. Phil Dascombe, Planner: Thanks Eric. First of all rdjust like to thank both Greg Miller
and Terry Beaubois of RDC Interactive who helped us put together this presentation. They
worked very hard and also loaned us some equipment that we can use. So, thank you to
them.
I am going to go through part of the presentation we did for the Working Group.. Just to
orient you here, on the left hand side you see an excerpt of the plan concept which is .the
area east of Ramona with the configuration roughly the same as you see in Figure A in the
back of your plan. On the right hand side here we have a 360-degree photograph. On the
top right are the existing conditions and in the bottom right is how that might look if the
draft plan was adopted. For the sake of orientation, the bottom of each photograph tells you
where you are and where you are standing. I’ll try to go through that as we go forward.
We are standing here where this little figure 3 is which is the comer of Waverley Street and
Homer Avenue. We’ll go through the existing conditions - top right, and what we’ll do is
kind of scroll around and end up looking up towards the Medical Foundation facilities. This
is Homer Avenue, we are looking toward Middlefield Road with St. Thomas Aquinas
church on the comer. That will remain the same. This is Waverley Street that we are
looking at with this building on the comer is one of those used by PAMF. As we scroll
around, you’re familiar with this sight, which is the parking lot of the Medical Foundation
with the Lee building in the background.
Now moving down to the bottom right, again the same image. You’ll notice that obviously a
lot of the stuff is going to stay the same, it is not changing per the plan. Again we are
looking at Homer Avenue, the church again, Waverley Street and the Medical Foundation
building. But now as we scroll around what you’ll see is what that might look like with a
park placed on that comer. This, for your information, is actually Johnson Park. It is about
two acres in size and the current plan calls for a 2.5 acre park.
Moving to the next site which is mid-block on Channing Avenue, standing at the entrance to
Scott Street. We are looking up Channing Avenue toward Waverley Street and as we pan
around what you’ll see is again the PAMF parking lot across the street. Behind those trees
there is the Lee building. As you scroll around that is the intersection of Channing and
Bryant. Again, moving down to the bottom right is what that might look like should a park
be placed there. So obviously all the parking lot is gone replaced by greenery and trees.
Then as you move across the site to the comer of Bryant and Channing is a multi-family
housing designation. We’ve placed a building that is at the height limit and placed at the
A:PC0526Minutes Page 7
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
setback, three stories in height, to give you an idea of what that might look like should it go
forward.
Finally I just want to show you number seven over here on the left-hand side. This is mid-
block on Homer Avenue between Waverley and Bryant. On the top right we are looking
down the driveway of the Williams House. As we pan around to the left what you’ll see is
the existing Dunn building used by PAMF. This is Homer Avenue down toward Alma
.Street,. theback.comer of the Lee..bNlding:again .v~rjth, the en~.~ce, to the_PAMF parking lot.
Same situation again this time with multi-family housing here appearing next to the
Williams House. Now as you pan around you notice that the Lee building is gone and what
we are looking at is a park of 2.5 acres.
There are couple of things I want to show which will give you an idea of what we plan or
imagine might happen under phase II. These were developed from photographs and it is to
give you a more three-dimensional view of the bulk and mass of buildings might look like.
I’m just going to let this run. It was developed by RDC Interactive. What we are doing is
flying in over a map but actually up to Ramona Plaza to get an idea of how that might look.
It is an existing building obviously one everyone recognizes. If you were to do a massing
study and perhaps place buildings next to that you can get an idea of how they relate to the
existing fabric of the area.
Finally, this is kind of new, it is an image that was developed from photographs that was
taken off the roof of City Hall. This is the same kind of thing and I’m just going to let this
run. You’ll notice gaps and that’s because the time wasn’t spent to fill in. You’ll see we’ve
got a pretty wide area shown here and if you can imagine this being done for the area that is
west of Ramona. You have existing buildings that will remain and then perhaps things that
you can place in next to those existing buildings. So it is a pretty exciting planning tool that
we can use.
Mr. Riel: As Phil indicated, the last two things we .showed you are what we want to use on
phase II. As I indicated, what we will be able to do is basically carve out bt~dings and put
in various types of scenarios and you’ll be able to get a good understanding of what a new
building would look like within the existing fabric.
It is a pretty phenomenal planning tool and you usually only see it as a presentation tool but
we want to use it as a part of the process to guide us in the creation of the development and
design standards for phase II. So the first part where you saw the panoramic views was kind
of a first step. We started that in March and you’ll note that one of the alternatives that was
selected was as a result of the May plan. So that was kind of the first step. What we want to
get to in phase II is to do what you saw as the last portion that Phil showed you. So with
that, I’d like to finalize Staffs comments.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the final recommendations of the
Working Group and provide comments, recommendations and modifications to the plan.
Designate a Planning Commissioner to act on behalf of the Planning Commission at the July
Council meeting. Then as a separate agenda item comment on the accuracy of the Draft
A:PC0526Minutes Page 8
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
EIR and recommend that the City Council find the Draft EIR has been prepared in
compliance with CEQA and adequately analyzes the potential impacts of the project and
related mitigation measures. Recommend that the City Council make a statement of over-
riding consideration with the finding that the economic, legal, social, technological, and
other benefits of the area plan as presented out-weigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts. That concludes Staffs presentation. Thank you.
. Chairman.Byrd:_ Commissioners..we hav.e...a..~great number ..0.f.,cards ..h.ere.. We can take
questions of Staff at this point or perhaps we can move ahead with the public comments and
then return.
There are about a dozen cards here and more coming. Let me remind members of the public
that each speaker will have up to five minutes to speak. If you have comments that echo the
comments of a previous speaker we’d be grateful if you would just say that you agree with
another speaker. -At the same time, if it takes the full five minutes to make your presentation
please take it. The first card was from Steve Pierce tobe followed by Lyrm Hollyn.
Mr. Steve Pierce, 209 Cowper, Palo Alto, Working Group Member: As part of the Working
Group one of the issues that we were constantly working with was the notion of density,
particularly with what is called AMF zoning. The difficulty I think all of us had was trying
to equate raw density numbers into a sense spatially of what that means. I think Phil has
some really slick tools that I think will be very helpful in that sense. In the vein that of
something that is not quite so slick, but I think might be useful to all of us here, a friend and
colleague of mine, Lynn Hollyn, has developed some artist renderings. Notions of what
might occur on the block where the Roth building is located. I think they are quite useful in
showing what this density of 50-60 dwe!ling units per acre might mean. Having gone
through this and basically looked at it and said is this an artist rendering or is this realistic.
And, indeed the setbacks, the densities, the fact that we have underground parking, the
heights and so on, do make this concept a very realistic one. I think it is a useful tool. I
don’t think we can kind of twist it around like Phil did but I think that this shows the kind of
thing you can do. This plan has a somewhat different site plan than what the Working
Group has worked up. One can kind of pick at this and pick at that and the park is a little
smaller so we’ll get some boos and hoots on that. I think that what we want to do is look at
the big picture of that which is what does 50-60 dwelling units per acre look like, and is that
something that we can live with. I know you have the drawings before you and I’d like to
introduce Lynn to go through some of those drawings and give you a feel for that level of
density. Thank you.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you. Ms. Hollyn.
Ms. Lynn.Hollyn, 522 Ramona Street, Palo Alto: Thank you. I have the privilege and
honor of working in the Pedro de Lemos National Historic Landmark Building at 522
Ramona where I design both commercial and residential properties.
By the way, although Steve and I are colleagues and friends I have a personal interest in this
area from the time that I found out that the Medical Center where I go was going to be
A:PC0526Minutes Page 9
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
demolished. I care very much about the community. I come from the northeast where we
really care about historical structures but we also care about n~g environments. So I’m
pleased that I share your vision for this space, Mr. Shannon, to address the five issues that
you brought up. I believe that this plan addresses all five equally. Actually, although there
might seem at face value to be contradictory, I found it a challenge and exciting that I was
able to bring together all five of those issues -- density, park, day care -- all into one plan.
We made these transparencies.and they...ar_e.di’fficult, to..see, I welc9me ..all. of you to come up
and see the real drawings on the easels. The point is that as you can see there is quite a bit
of"high density" units, 50-60 units. One of the reasons I’m really excited about doing this is
that the principle of Walter Hayes, where one of my children went to school, was forced to
move from here because there wasn’t housing. I’ve had a lot of world class musicians, artists
and Stanford Fellows who have had to move. So I do think it is important as a community
to maintain the cultural diversity and incredible wealth of talent that we have and make this
a place that we want to live not only visually, which this plan shows. The reason I reduced
the park was I redistributed the park. Instead of just having it be a half a city block I thought
it really behooved the City and the price tag would be better if the City purchased just a line
over half of the one side of the block. Then I took that same space, this scale is a quarter of
an inch for 40 feet, so that you have a courtyard in each area. So that high density housing
is offset by all of these beautiful parks. So it is a village within a village. You have a place
to go, to feel comfortable, to feel nurtured, but yet all of it is beautiful instead of just half of
it. Instead of it being like a brick wall that separates it.
The next slide shows the Roth building as it is and trying to take off on that architecture.
The whole plan is a nod to Pedro De Lemos] in particular. If you are familiar with Addiage
& Misner, Santa Barbara karma, basically the heritage of the area. So the whole plan is
designed around the historical basis of this community which I think is really important. In
fact I’ve echoed, as you see here where the Roth building is, that over here where the
proposed day-care center is. Behind the day care center is a children’s park which is more
protected from the main park. It is open on three sides that as I understand it was a request
from the Police Department so it could be patrolled and open.
One of the other beauties of the plan is that it features a town center which I think is a
symbol of our community. The bell tower, whether it be only metaphorical, that it is a call
to order and it harkens to the past and not only architectural history but it has a lot of
sentimental remembrances. You see how the park flows. There are a lot of spaces for
sitting and communing. I’ve also taken pictures, which I’ll show later, of Levi Strauss Park
in the City where I visited yesterday to show how beautiful a lot of water features would be
¯ to incorporate. You can see-how these are essentially monolithic structures and why I feel it
is important not to overladen your restrictions on designers. It is not really about setbacks.
Chairman Byrd: I’ll need to ask you to sum up right now.
Ms. Hollyn: So the point is you can make monolithic structures look beautiful as you can
see in that one and here. This shows you the courtyard with all of the surrounding structures
which is historically relevant. Then the last thing is to look at those alleys that in plan are
only a quarter of an inch big. You can see how wide the alleys are and if you are familiar
A:PC0526Minutes Page 10
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
with Ramona Street you see how beautiful it is, you get cross ventilation, vegetation and
beautiful spaces even in a high density situation. That sums it up. It just addresses all the
issues that you’ve asked for.
Here is this park, Levi Strauss. I wish you well in your development.
Chairman Byrd: Ms. Hollyn, has this plan been presented to the Working Group or Staff
before this evening? ................................
Ms. Hollyn: No. I was just requested to do this two weeks ago. So I was just given the
specifications of what the wish list was. I work also with Terry and Greg. They do drafting
for me of my plans. So this is the first chance I’ve had to be involved with it. As I say I am
excited to present this to you. I don’t have any proprietary interest. If this helps you I don’t
feel any ownership of it. This is my giit to the City.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you. The next speaker is Crystal Gamage to be followed by Earl
Wallace.
Ms. Crystal Gamage, 1568 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto: I’m here this evening as the
President of the Board of Trustees of Channing House which has been alluded to. I was
delighted tonight, when I picked up the Staff report, to find on page five, Staff had indicated
that the Working Group recommended the plan propose that the streets be converted to two-
way with the caveat and that the conversion only occur at such time when the issues as
Whole Foods and Channing House are resolved. We were ~;ery heartened to read that this
evening. Since July of last year our residents have been following the reports and you’ve
had several communications from Bill Phillips, President of our Resident’s Council and
from Fran Lawrence. The Board has been following this also. I have written a letter both to
the Planning Commission and the Council expressing our interest in keeping both Channing
Avenue and Homer Avenue one-way. I thought that the suggestions of the residents were
thoughtful and appropriate and legitimate. So I’m encouraged to know that the Staff wants
to continue this. I hope that the Working Group will certainly include Channing House.
Channing House has been occupied by our residents for the last 35 years, since 1964. So
they have had a lot of experience with traffic around town and how well the one-way street
has served Channing House. So we want to be sure that their safety and their concerns are
considered as much as any others in the plan. All I can say is that we hope to meet with the
Staff and we’ve invited Ed Gawf and Staff members to come to Channing House and meet
our residents and see what their genuine concerns are. That’s my message this evening.
Thank you.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. Earl Wallace to be followed by Fran Laurence.
Mr. Earl Wallace, 850 Webster Street, Palo Alto: Good evening. I’m Earl Wallace, a
resident of Channing House for the past four years. I am now Vice President of the
Resident’s Council of the retirement community. You’ve heard on many occasions from
Wes Phillips who is the President of our Resident’s Council. He had addressed a letter to
A:PC0526Minutes Page 11
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
you and was unable to be here this evening so he asked me to read that letter and deliver it to
you.
In previous correspondence and oral communications with the Planning Commission,
residents and trustees of Channing House have cited the multiple reasonings for our
opposition to reversion of the traffic flow on Channing and Homer to two-way. We-have
submitted to the City Council petitions signed by more than 200 residents of Channing
-.House. stating the principal reasons for..,our opp0sitior~
I would like to reiterate 0nly our most urgent concerns. Residents of Channing House
would be Uniquely disadvantaged if the one-way flow of traffic on Homer reverted to two-
way. It would be far more dangerous for us to exit from our underground garage, up a
curving ramp onto Homer if we wanted to proceed toward Alma because we would need to
cross in front of opposing traffic and merge into the right lane.
There are far more pedestrians than drivers at Channing House. Many of whom walk
slowly, have diminished reaction time as well as reduced visual and auditory capacities.
They feel far safer crossing the one-way street and are well aware that a fellow resident was
killed while crossing a nearby two-way street.
The Draft SOFA EIR on page 2-66 quoted John Stanley as follows, "the simplified
operation of one-way streets can be helpful to elderly drivers and pedestrians." We agree.
Moreover the Draft EIR fails to support recommendations of the Working Group for
conversion of these two streets to two-way with qualitative data needed to arrive at a
considered decision. In fact the only specific impact of two-way flow addressed in that
report concerns the Whole Foods Market and that was considered not to be significant if
their proposed mitigation measures were instituted. We question whether those measures
would be observed by either trackers or customers of the food market.
Certainly our concerns and those of the thousands of drivers who regularly transit these
streets and the residents of neighboring streets who would be affected by diversion of
drivers from Channing and Homer were not addressed in the EIR report. There are many
alternative measures for calming the traffic on Homer and Channing that could be cost
effective. The EIR gave scant attention to a few that might be employed but only if the two-
way traffic pattern were adopted and failed to provide the desired calming. At the very least
the Planning Commission should recommend that no change in the traffic patterns on
Homer and Channing be made unless more detailed quantitative data on this issue are
acquired and analyzed. It will takes years for the SOFA district to be redeveloped. There is
no need to rush into a decision to change the traffic flow on these major streets without far
better justification than has been offered by the Working Group. Thank you for your
consideration. We hope that you will maintain the one-way streets. Thank you.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you Mr. Wallace. Fran Laurence to be followed by Mary Van
Paten.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 12
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Fran Laurence, Channing House, Palo Alto: This will be a very short report, you will
be glad to know, but from a different angle. I’m speaking of course against the rerouting of
Channing.and Homer. I want to point out a view to you that your own expert that you hired
for your report, John Stanley, has given you eight different points of why you should not
convert to two-way streets. The title that of that report, one-way streets provide superior
safety and convenience and that’s page 2-66. Among these reasons are that one-way streets
are much safer of course for drivers and pedestrians. This has been pointed out to you
especially.for Channing House,o,...One..o£~the.. _thiags th.a.t..o.ccurre~ to ~.m.e .while watching your
interesting display, is that there are approximately 300 people at Channing House which is
more than the rest of Homer, I’m sure, combined. The museums there, the clinic -- so we
are by far the oldest and most numerous of the people affected by this proposed street
change. Of course the very difficult thing is trying to cross two-way traffic and has been
pointed out one of our residents has been killed trying to get across on Forest and Cowper.
Another point, being a good neighbor, Channing parks its 80 cars underground. The other
thing that I was struck by in your report here is that it was suggested that you convert back
to two-way streets. Channing House is 35 years old. It is older than most .of these people
that were reporting on this report to convert back. It just doesn’t make any sense because we
have been here a long time and way we’ve improved that is our underground right of way
that comes up against the traffic.
My point was, visualize the dangers of negotiating that exit against traffic from an
underground garage. Now, the reasons given for these major changes is to calm traffic by
cluttering up the streets with so many cars that .other cars would be discouraged from
coming there. The expense of this is the added environmental pollution that will ensue. The
many dangers that Mr. Stanley points out such as head on collisions. If the need is to calm
traffic there are many other ways that our very efficient Traffic Division has used effectively
in other parts of the City. For instance speed bumps, more stop signs, roundabouts, or that
interesting trailer that they move up and tell you how fast you are going in traffic which
really slows down traffic a lot.
In my other life I was in charge of Muni National Traffic Safety Programs for the National
Safety Council at its headquarters in Chicago. For the past ten years I’vebeen a resident of
Channing House. During that time I noticed and documented the numbers of accidents and
near accidents at Homer and Webster before we persuaded the City to install a stop sign at
Homer and Webster. This has eliminated, ’ as far as I know, any major accidents and has
certainly calmed traffic. Thank you for your attention.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you Ms. Laurence. Mary Van Patten to be followed by Hannah
Claybom.
Ms.Mary Van Patten, 905 Van Aub-en Circle, Palo Alto: I am the co,chair of the local
organizing committee at the Unitarian Universal Church. One of the problems-that our
congregation decided that they needed to study was affordable housing. We held a meeting
last Thursday at our church and were really please to get out the 200 people who are
interested in this subject. We presented information that we had found out over a year of
A:PC0526Minutes Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
study. We had gathered quite a lot of information in that time. We had decided we would
like very much to support the SOFA plan and we want to have affordable housing and a
park included. We like the plan of the Working Group and we urge you to consider very
carefully this plan. Thank you.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. Hannah Claybom to be followed by David
Bubenik.
Ms. Hannah Claybom, Museum of American Heritage, 351 Homer A~nue, Palo Alto: I’m
the Executive Director of the Museum of American Heritage which is the PF to the left of
the park PF. The first thing that I wanted to say is that I’ve read two versions of the plan and
I’m new to this process. I wanted to say that we agree wholeheartedly with the
recommendations that were made for our facility in both plans which basically was to try to
work with the community and the City to increase the Museum’s hours, to make our
.approach more welcoming, and to incorporate more public programs. Those are our goals
as well but as most of you know we have a balancing act with our desire to be approached
by the public and to protect our historic property. That said, the main point that I wanted to
make briefly tonight was that we support the Working Group’s plan version of the placement
of the park. We have certain limitations. We love our building, it is an historic building and
we were happy that we were able to successfully restore it. It has some limitations. We can
only fit 50 people into the largest space in our facility for any type of gathering. So a
continuous flex space directly across the street would be very advantageous for all our
events. Sometimes it’s thing so simple as ha~ng a-place for the school children, the school
tours that come to us, to have a place to eat lunch that is convenient. We also think, there
are differing views but, thathaving the continuous adjacent open spaces or public facilities
really creates an aura of a larger open space and public facility. So rather than having .it
separated from the other public spaces as in the other plan we would prefer, and I’m not sure
if there will be a situation where you need to choose, but that would certainly be our choice.
I’m sure I’m reiterating other people’s concerns over the last two years about parking but I
did want to point out that when our facility, a public museum, moved into the site we have
only four designated parking spaces. Two of those are handicapped. We rely on the
weekends, which is the main traffic we get is Saturday and Sunday, we rely on the parking
lot across the street. So when the parking lot disappears and there is no more parking over
there we will be additionally stressed.
Lastly, the subject I’m least familiar with is the zoning regulations for the property adjacent
to us which is the AMF property-which I understand would allow up to three-story office
buildings. I’m not sure exactly what the review process for that is but I did want to point out
that for a property as sensitive as the Williams property to have a three-story office building
directly adjacent to us might certainly impact us negatively. I’m not sure at this point
-whethgr there Would be a cau~e to ~evie~9. So tfiose ar~ thingg I’m ptitting ou£ I’m not sure
if they are actually a problem but they are things we’re concerned about. Certainly the thing
we like the most is having that beautiful park site. That computer drawing showing what it
would like from our driveway .was just really lovely. Thank you.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Chairman Byrd: Ms. Clayborn, just so your group is aware, the zone designation for the
land adjacent to you, attached multi-family, is in fact for residential not office.
Ms. Claybom: Okay, but I was told it could be up to three stories. Is that correct?
Chairman Byrd: Just so you understand it is a different use. Thank you. David Bubenik to
be followed by Jim Baer.
Mr. David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto: I want t~ Speakg~nerally to support the
plan that has come out of the Worldng Group. I like it very much for the neighborhood. I’d
like to make a few comments of support and make a few suggestions too.
First regarding reversion of Homer and Channing to two-way can be very welcome by us
ground level residents in the neighborhood. My concern is specifically safety. From where
I sit, about 25 feet from the street, I see a lot of wrong-way drivers. I see people forgetting
they are on a one-way street trying to do two-way things like taming left in the right hand
lane. Last month somebody go .hit that way at Homer and Ramona_ I think reverting these
to the two-way pattern that is prevalent as far away as Redwood City through Sunnyvale
would be a very welcome thing and a very safe thing to do. Please go through with it.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Regarding another issue, my favorite, the park. I want to start by asking you to please not
adopt recommendation four which deals with the EIR impact and in particular that is not
really an unavoidable impact not to make a park on the site. The shortfall of open space in
the area is documentable and very real. I start with data from the Bureau of Census, the
1990 Census, which is published in this form. It gives the population block by block for the
state of California- It is not a very pretty chart but it will have to do. This is the Downtown
area, this is the creek, here is Alma Street, Embarcadero, and Middlefield. This is the SOFA
area and this is what I’m calling SOFA park. It shows the whole block, that’s what we were
pushing for originally. I have not had time to redraw this in accord with the
recommendation. This is the same chart with a few more lines on it. Now, I mentioned that
the dark and light correspond to the population block by block. The darker it is the more
people there are in the particular census block. I want to also point out that there are half-
mile circles around each one of the park sites: Johnson, the proposed SOFA park, Rinconada
Park, and E1Pardee Park.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan calls for two acres of park for every thousand people within
half a mile. So to meet that standard, for example let’s take Johnson Park, it’s 2.5 acres and
should serve t,250 people. So working-within it’s circle starting fromthe creek and find if.
there are 1,250 people and by thb time I get to that dark outlined area there along Everett,
Middlefield, and Alma, there are 1,781 people. Johnson Park is used up and part of it’s
circle overlaps into SOFA and does not count. Within that square block around that
42........p~o~6s-ed-SOFA~-ar-k-th~r~ gre-’2,0~9 p~bpqe, 2,050 if~r6u-cbSnt--th~ One pe~sofi th~3~ fofind
43 living at City Hall at night. That would cal! for a four-acre park. We realize that is probably
44 not feasible. We want to support the compromise that was reached at your March 10
45 meeting and reaffirmed by the Worldng Group.
46
A:PC0526Minutes Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
Speaking for the members of the Friends of Palo Alto Downtown Green, the park advocacy
organization in the area, we welcome this division. We also welcome our new block mates
represented by Peninsula Interfaith Action and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation.
A couple of other items I’d like to mention while I still have some time here. One if the
support for AMF on there is contingent on it being developed into affordable housing2 I’d
like to support the Museum. This part of it.here be developed as a parking lot for their use
and for community, use and for park~use. 2kl.so.no.w .thatAMF has been moved onto the
main block can we consider rezoning that block to DHS or R-2? It would be a nice
extension of the existing patterns in the neighborhood. The housing shortfall we would have
there I believe could be made up in this pink and rose area which is now designated as
mixed use. But do we really need more commercial space in this area? What do we need
more, housing Or commerce? I would go for housing. That is all I have to say tonight. I
like this plan basically. Please go with it. Thank you very much.
C~an Byrd: Thank you. Jim Baer to be followed by Yoriko Kishimoto.
Mr. Jim Baer, 532 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto: I’m a tittle dim with a flu tonight. Most of
my comments really have to do with phase II. Staff made clear to me in a very warm
meeting that some of the inputs would be welcome about modifications as to how small
parcel development for mixed use be addressed. Let me talk of that process in a broad
planning policy concern. I think this plan is admirable in its mix-rare of goals not just for
SOFA but goals that the entire community embraced. So it is at the edges at that broad fine
concept where the activity will take place when it moves from plan to implementation. It is
not that the PC process is an admirable process, it is arduous for Staff, it is arduous for
policy makers, and its painfully arduous for applicants. But the times that process has been
most utilized were in times of significant zoning change.
On E1 Camino in 1978 when the zoning for that district was changed for the next two years
all projects, most of which were multi-family, required a PC process by design by City
Council. In 1986 when Downtown was zoned from a 3.0 to a 1.0 FAR then the following
six years virtually half of all developments involved Planned Community zones and they
were unanimously approved by and large. Most of those, half of those, had nothing to do
with increased FAR or density. So for here, what this broad brush of planning policy goals
that are being balanced, I hope that there would be something in this, in particular where
there is a level of design focus that this plan also had. But there is no recognition that son-
of-a-gun building housing is extremely difficult and building housing on small parcels is
virtually impossible under planning boundaries. We see that when you.look at classic
communities, three projects unanimously approved by Planning Commission and City
Council, weren’t increased density. They were because the zoning parameters didn’t permit
that type of housing. In affordable housing projects, Lytton, the SRO, the disability project
....... -frb-m-the-Nli~-P~fin~ula-H05si~g CdaIitio-fi g-n-Stieffdia5 were ~teve-lolSCd,~ ~0g-e la~d ~ 154
done under PCs. So this is not in defense of PC because I think the neighbors’ concerns
about PCs are manipulative in the hands of skillful developers to get more, bigger, faster.
There can be a protection against those concerns about FAR and density but there needs to
A:PC0526Minutes Page 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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
be something that says, when we go to implement this how do you look at minimum
densities when you have an oak tree that eats up a substantial part of the density.
The challenge on these small parcels is absolutely both in cost and physical boundaries is
parking. Here you are going to have an enormous challenge to adequately park, to meet the
design parameters, to protect trees, to provide open space, to provide private open space.
Now, to move from the general comments about the AMF and the DHS, which I think have
¯ been admirably .handled,..subject to.ha:~ing.a .process_ that.allows re.al deyelopers spending
real dollars trying to build homes for real people who want to live in those homes, some
flexibility within which to operate. In the MU-1 and MU-2, I want to point out again, I’m
going to defer quite detailed comments for the Working Group and Planning Staff because
it’s been made clear that oppommity is available. I look at a couple of parcels where I would
have an interest for example where there are commercial properties that are historic and I
don’t understand how those can be parked without significantly defeating the ability to
provide the housing that is specified. I’m going to use a specific example. If the Zion
. church were to be preserved and it was waived its 25% parking requirement, where does the
75% get parked? Only if it is taken out of what would otherwise be available for housing.
So the one part of the clinic’s portion of the property as we move east, and I don’t understand
if there is a high value placed on some of the particular historic structures, I don’t see how
the incentives and parking reduction can achieve both preservation of those historic
structures and come anywhere near preserving the value in developing housing which is the
big picture objective of that policy. I think it is an admirable plan. I think it speaks very
well of the leadership of the Planning Staff to bring forward this kind of congealed plan.
Let’s not make it a defeat for the planning process by putting such rigid boundaries on it that
the first developers out of the chute are faced with begging for mercy that there are precise
parameters that they can’t meet without the flexibility to create a success for the planning
community and the Staff. So admirable job and I’ll !ook forward to working on phase II
later.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you Mr. Baer. Yoriko Kishimoto to be followed by Patricia Safflr.
Mr. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto: I have the honor of being a
brand new member of the Working Group. I’ve taken on Judith Kempets position. I
wanted to start out by expressing my support for phase I of the Working Group’s plan. I
think it represents a lot of positive changes. I appreciate the hard work of the Staff and the
Working Group members who worked a couple of years before I joined.
I did notice as part of the Staff report that as part of approving phase I that you are also
being asked to approve the adoption of all the policies and programs in Chapter Three. I
wasn’t sure ff that included all the policies which pertain only to phase I or phase II. In any
case I wanted to call one out to your attention. It is Policy L-6 and I’ll just read it.
Recognize the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan as a growth area that if developed to its highest
potential will use a substantial portion of the non-residential development allowed by the
Downtown Development Cap.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
I think the thrust of this policy is entirely about non-residential development which is
entirely in phase II but it is not greyed out like the other phase II policy. I was kind of
puzzled about that so I wanted to make sure that it at least got postponed, that it not be
approved until at least we discussed these two. We haven’t discussed it yet. If you are being
asked to recommend approving all the policies and programs that you consider taking that
out until we have a chance to talk about it.
My.second.point.is abaut.historic p~:eservation, .!..kn.ow that the m~ ~ of the Working
Group has been to kind of defer implementation and the guidelines to the Historic
Preservation Ordinance. A number of people have said that if some areas or some buildings
are very, very important to the neighborhood they should be called out. I noticed that the
Roth building was called out. One policy says preserve Roth building period. So I would
like to see a little bit stronger language. For example, you might have a policy that says
preserve the 200 Homer storefront buildings. I’m sure there are other good examples of that.
The last comment that I’ll make is on the AMF zones. On the Working Group we did start
to discuss whether it would be possible to have that in two tiers of density. The reason is
that it was supposed to be kind of a tiered density. I think most people do support AMF
going on to that half of the main PAMF block but it is one of the areas that is farthest away
from the transit center and it probably should be lower density. So I think some people in
the neighborhood feel very strongly that it should be limited to two-story and lower the
density. That might be true for the lot next to the Heritage Museum as well. Thank you.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you. Patricia SatT~ to be followed by Marlene Prendergast.
Patricia Safftr, 2719 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: I’m speaking tonight for the League of
Women of Voters of Palo Alto. The League of Women of Voters is generally enthusiastic
about phase I aspects of the SOFA plan especially including the zoning change made by the
Working Group at its May 26th meeting. We are referring to zoning the main clinic block
to be a park with adjacent housing.
The League’s housing position includes the dual goals of increasing the availability of
diverse housing oppommities with an emphasis on economic diversity and maintaining the
quality of immediate and larger neighborhoods. We believe the SOFA/PAMF plan supports
both these goals. We particularly supports Policy H-8 concerning expanding the supply of
affordable housing and the program H-1 recommending that the BMR requirement for the
Palo Alto Medical Foundation result in land for an affordable housing site.
The goal of a one acre site seems barely adequate. We favor at least 1.5 acres which is 15%
of the approximate ten acres of the PAMF land soon to be vacated. Even two acres if
additional funding could be found. We urge all City entities to work aggressively to achieve
a really substanUal amount of atfordable housing m this area for botla low and medium
income families. This could include many of our teachers, police, and government workers.
The League is also concerned about the availability of child care in our community. We
support Policy L-3 and the accompanying program L-2 to develop a child care facility in the
A:PC0526Minutes Page 18
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
PAMF area. We are pleased that the Medical Foundation’s earlier commitment of land for
child care will help make this happen.
The concept of placing a block in the main clinic block next to a multi-family housing
development conforms to the League’s goal of adequate open space and recreation facilities
in the mid-Peninsula and a general green and open feeling in our residential neighborhood.
The transportation policies of the plan agree with League goals to minimize use of private
automobiles, We are,.gladto see such.a section included in,the..plan..
We return to the goal of an affordable family housing to conclude and a 15% BMR
requirement. We need the housing and available land is the major stumbling block. We
have a local non-profit developer, highly competent, and will work with the neighborhood.
We believe an oppommity is here which must not be lost. Thank you very much.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you. Marlene Prendergast to be followed by Karen Holman.
Ms. Marlene Prendergast, 725 Alma Street, Paid Alto: I’m the Executive.Director of the
Paid Alto Housing Corporation, a non-profit housing developer here in town. I was also a
member of the Working Group for however many years it was. It is with pleasure that we
finished but also with Some sense of coming to a good result and a good product. I very
briefly want to say thank you to the Planning Commission for your very good work the first
time this plan came to you and to ask you to do that again. To reaffirm what you said and
decided the first time around. Just to remind you, I know you don’t need reminding, it is that
you spoke strongly for a sizable BMR contribution and a site that is feasible and workable
for multi-family and an affordable development and for this AMF zoning on the main clinic
site. So that went back. I think you also spoke for flexibility, whether that was exactly the
PC zone or not, but the Housing Corporation obviously agrees with all of those goals. I
that’s really all we wanted to say which was we hope this will go forward to the Council in
sort of the same spirit of compromise and that the result will be as we hope.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you. Karen Holman to be followed by Paul Kelleher.
Ms. Karen Holman, 725 Homer, Paid Alto: I was also a Working Group member. I would
like echo, without repeating it, a lot of what Yoriko said earlier. One of the strongest
messages we got from the public and this was echoed by the Working Group was that there
was a very strong interest in retaining the historic nature and character of the SOFA area.
Given that, a number of the Working Group members would like to see the historic houses
on Bryant for example zoned not AMF but something else,, and perhaps DHS, more
appropriate to their retention. You might as a member of the Working Group how did we
end up with this being AMF. It was just a function of making a lot decisions very quickly.
That’s not a criticism of the process it was just trying to get an awful lot done in a short
period of time and laavmg a little bit ofttme to reflect on it. It seemed to make sense to have
them zoned toward the intention. If the intention is their retention AMF does not satisfy
ttiat.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Additionally, I think we were relying on the Historic Preservation Ordinance to retain some
of those buildings and their protection. We don’t have a preservation ordinance yet and
possibly we might not ever have one. So again, I think that makes it even more important to
identify historic structures that you want to protect and do that in this plan.
Additionally a lower density designation for those properties would provide some -relief
from the density and continue the eclectic nature and flavor of the area. If built out, phase I
as noted here, would have almost_half of..the .ho .u_s_ing ...ugits ~at were.de.@ed. Since the
density was supposed to get higher towards High Street there is really nothing lost by zoning
these as DHS, again for instance. The office space in phase II would probably converted to
housing units as opposed to office.
One other thing that I’m a line puzzled by is that in the Planning Department’s latest
communication there was a desire by the Working Group to see design review of buildings
going on in this-area including single family. In this latest communication the Planning
Department has designated the ARB to do the design review of single family. I’m a bit
puzzled by that given that’s not their charge or expertise. Again, if you are looking towards
maintaining the historic nature of this area it seems to me the HRB who has that expertise
and that experience would be a more likely body to be doing that. So those are my
comments, thank you.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. Paul Kelleher to be followed by Irvin Dawid.
Mr. Paul Kelleher, 426 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto: I’ve spoken a few times on these issues
and I’ll speak again. I’m really encouraging the Commission to stick with it on the 2.5 acre
park and that new park and not give up Scott Park or any of these ideas. I think that it is
really a vision thing. If you guys look down the road this would be something that really
sticks.
On the affordable housing, I think that’s a great compatible use on that same block. I think
you’d be hard pressed to go to other parts of the City and find people who are really
supportive of these types of developments with these moderate densities and things like that.
I haven’t found any opposition among the people in the neighborhood that I’ve talked to, to
the types of things that are being proposed right now. So I think it is a winner on both the
affordable housing and the park.
The two-way street issue is a little more troublesome. It is going to be necessary to do
something to mitigate the -affects .at Channing House and at Whole Foods. ’ So there are
challenges there and I’m hoping somebody can figure out how to deal with that. The
conversion of Homer and Channing to two-way is, in my mind, five years from now going
to be the defining issue in this neighborhood. You created a process here where you asked a
group of people to recreate a neighborhood that had been bulldozed long ago. One of the
things they said is that part of creating that character is getting these streets rationalized to
the rest of the traffic in the City. To leave that out at this time, I think, would be a grave
mistake because five years from now, ten years from now,. with the way traffic is increasing
I think those streets will become arteries. There is no doubt in my mind that if something
A:PC0526Minutes Page 20
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
43
44
45
46
isn’t done to address the increase in traffic that there will be a problem down the road. That
will be what defines that neighborhood. You can zone until the cows come home but there
will be cars rushing down Homer in one direction and cars rushing up Channing in the other.
They will be going over to Sand Hill and they’ll be racing out the extension at Channing if
anything is done to calm Embarcadero. It is just without a doubt that’s going to happen. So
that will be what you leave the neighborhood if you do not address this one-way issue.
Just in-closing, .the two,..places..where, .y..ou’v,e,got.p.r.oblems with ,the.~two-way conversion,
which is Channing House and Whole Foods, are in some ways the very types of structures
and development and traffic intensity generators that are not in the current planning process.
I don~t think you’d put a grocery store which is generating all these trips constantly with a
track unloading on the street, you wouldn’t put that in a residential development plan. Nor
would you allow anything remotely like Channing House to spring up anywhere in town
right now. That’s not saying Channing House is a bad place it’s just the time that it was
created in. So the fact that there are traffic problems associated with Channing House and
Whole Foods I don’t think should take away from the objective here which is to create a
neighborhood with some character that we can all be proud of. So do what you can. Put the
smart guys to work trying to help those people out at both ends of that street and lets see if
we can get a big park and two-way street. Thank you very much.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you. Irvin Dawid to be followed by Joette Farand.
Mr. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Byrd, Planning
Commissioners. Let me first get some of the transportation stuff quickly out of the way.
Hopefully I can get into the housing which is really what I’m interested in.
I will agree with the last speaker. I do think that the one-way status of Homer and Channing
adds to the expressway mentality in our area that really does not exist anywhere else in Palo
Alto, certainly not in the Downtown area. I think the objects that the Channing House
residents have could easily be overcome with safe pedestrian crossing and the exit from their
driveway. I think that can all be done with proper traffic engineering. I think those
concerns can be met but I think, as the previous gentleman said, from the neighborhood
perspective it does make sense to revert.
I noticed that on the map it says bicycle/pedestrian crossing which I’m hoping to get. It
would certainly benefit me. To me the real bicycle/pedestrian issue here is on Scott Street,
the way Scott ends and Channing. To me there should be a natural continuation over to
Homer preferably-even .going through the. museum and then right into Forest. Obviously
you couldn’t do that latter part but I really would urge you to look at continuing Scott Street
as a ped/bike or perhaps an alley facility. I think it makes eminent sense.
As a resident of aftbrdagle housing, 753 Alma is Alma Place, commonly referred to as the
SRO. It is great to be a beneficiary of affordable housing and therefore it goes without
saying the more affordable we make this new development the better. But affordable
doesn’t necessarily mean public owned, publicly run, say by the Palo Alto Housing Corp.
Affordable can simply mean affordable to somebody. I think everywhere on this map where
A:PC0526Minutes Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
you see DHS you can basically change that to "unaffordable" to the common working man
or woman in this county and every place where you see AMF you can basically say "this
might be affordable." It is going to be small but it is going to be more affordable. I have an
objection with the DHS that is located on Waverley and Homer, that corner there behind the
museum. Supposedly DHS is supposed to buffer existing residential neighborhoods from
higher intensity development. That whole area is surrounded by RM-30, RM-40, RM-40,
PF and Homer. I don’t see where the buffer is.
Some of the other speakers simply talked about the fact ~ai this area, some of the AMF was
further away from the transit center. If you look fight here, I think we have some of the
most beautiful buildings in all of Palo Alto, four, five, six stories by the Chamber of
Commerce and across the street. There is nothing affronting or assaulting about higher
density. I think walls and too much landscaping can be affronting or assaulting. I don’t see
anything inherently assaulting or that needs to be mitigated with high density. Frankly, I
think high density; we should replace that name with "affordable."
One more quick point here. I don’t think that there needs to be a parking lot for the museum
or for the park. This is an urban area. It is going to become more urban. It is sort of a
known in these areas you need to find other ways to access and the private single occupant
automobile is not the preferred means here, nor should we accommodate them. Jim Baer’s
points about dividing the parking, I think it is really critical that you think about relaxing
parking requirements here and making more room for people, make more room for what
people need, the services, the park, and try to make it so the automobile’s requirements take
up less.
I do want to say about the park, I think the very first person who made the presentation, I
think a more suitable size park for this area is what I call the Scott Street Park. I think it is
much more to scale. I’ve been in the Council Chambers where the Johnson Park was
causing more problems than anything else. I just simply recall people talking about whether
to have port-a-potties or not, and all these problems, because it becomes a regional draw.
The way the park is right now I sort of see similar problems. I think if the park was more
enclosed I think it would be generally more people friendly and more local friendly. Good
luck.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. Joette Farand to be followed by Jim De La Hunt.
Ms. Joette Farand, 724 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: I live in a victorian and I’m your neighbor.
I spoke to you last time about our-need for a park and our need for open space.- I’m not
going to go through the statistics of what this area calls for. I already did that. I commend
you on your last recommendation of the 2.5 park. I wasn’t going to speak until the woman
here spoke and presented this whole new idea about things and it just took my breath away.
Last time we met I spoke to you about the Delta Ta House, the beautitul victorian right on
this corner that was tom down for a three story condominium. I guess I am concerned about
all of the AMF zoning in terms of those victorians that still exist. We still have some
beautiful ones especially the Palo Alto Medical Clinic psychiatry building. That home that
is converted to the psychiatry oftice building now. It is quite lovely and I would just hope
A:PC0526Minutes Page 22
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
-zr2
43
44
45
that you would look at the zoning of those historical homes that could be maintained. I am
c0ncemed about the woman who did this presentation about this whole new configuration
with all the very high density. I guess I am concerned about the massing and the change of
what that does to our neighborhood. I have seen beautiful victorians tom down and a lot of
condominiums in this area. I would just hope you would consider keeping the victorians
that still do exist in our neighborhood. Thank you for listening and thank you for .;our
consideration.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. Jim De La Hunt and ~at is the last speaker card
that I have. If anyone else wishes to speak please fill out a card now.
Mr. Jim De La Hunt, 558 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. I’m basically a
neophyte. I just heard that this was going to be happening and I got my little postcard so I
decided I’d stop by and check out my copy of the phone book. Having used it as bedtime
reading over the past couple of weeks, I haven’t gone very deep into it but, what I’ve seen
looks great. I’m in favor of all of it. If the rest of the process can get all of policies and
programs in Chapter Three all implemented well that would be wonderful. If there are
indeed conflicts well of course that will be when the fun starts.
Looking at this there is a tremendous amount of work that went on in this and I really
applaud the Working Group for going through it. I applaud the Commission and the
Council for setting up the process that led to the Working Group. As a civilian just reading
it I am really pleased by the results I’m seeing here. So that’s wonderful.
The one suggestion I would make about process is, I had a bit of trouble getting hold of my
copy of the phone book. The City is happy to provide them but I had to go in person to the
City Offices and I had to work that around my work schedule. It would have been
wonderful if it was up on a website that I could just download. As a more generally thing, if
all of the papers that are on that agenda table out there were on a website and downloadable
even someone like me who is less than ldlometer away from the City Hall would find it
really helpful in malting the materials more accessible. That’s all I had to say. Thank you
very much to the Working Group. I’m really pleased and good luck sorting the rest of it out.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you. Seeing no other speaker cards before I will close the Public
Hearing. I propose that we take a short five minute break and come back and have
questions of Staffand then our discussion. So we will reconvene at 8:45.
We have now closed the Public Hearing .and will bring the discussion back to the
Commission. First we’ll invite questions before we move on to our own discussion of the
plan. I would like to invite one or more members of the Working Group to be available
here, since it is a Working Group product, to answer any questions we may have. Is that
acceptable to Statt’?
Mr. Riel: Perfectly.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1.7
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
Chairman Byrd: Commissioners what I would like to do, just looking ahead one minute,
what I would like to do when we return to our discussion is to tick through the five or six
substantive areas that we did back when we discussed this back in March. Go through
housing, transportation, the issue of the park, design, building, historic issues, and anything
else. Maybe we can keep those sub-groups in mind as we ask questions here. Who would
like to begin the questioning process. Commissioner Schmidt.
Commissioner Sckmidt: ..I.justhave.a ~.e_ry basic..questio~.. A clarification of, the discussion
and recommendations that we will make tonight, we’ve talked about two phases, in the plan
document several program texts are grayed out. I know you said that we would be
commenting on the general policies and programs and then dealing with the specifics of
those grayed areas in phase II. I’d like you to say a little bit more about that. For example,
are we saying tonight if we don’t comment about it that we will endorse a 2.5 FAR.
Mr. Riel: No that is not the intent. We grayed out the areas that we will discuss in certainty
in phase II. We obviously look forward to any direction from you this evening on any of
those but by not commenting does not mean that they are cast in stone. So what I’m saying
is what we are looking for comments this evening are those that are not in gray are a part of
phase I and those that are in gray are phase II. There is going to be another process,
planning process, to go through and evaluate each of those. We kept the Phase II portion of
the text as is and they are identical to what was on the December draft.
Mr. Gawf: Eric, am I right in saying that the policies that are shown in the shaded, the gray,
the Planning Commission is not acting on those one way or the other tonight.
Mrl Riel: Correct.
Mr.Gawf: They are acting on everything that is not shaded.
Mr.Pdel: Correct.
Commissioner Schmidt: Then as an example if at the later phase we think that 2.5 is not an
appropriate density it could be one or three or whatever, that after discussion, after the
Working Group comes back with a recommendation that any of those things could change.
Mr. Riel: Correct. My assumption is what will happen is another document will be
prepared and all those gray shaded areas would be the starting point for the discussion of the
phase II process. Obviously.we would expect there to be-changes, additional ones and
modifications to those.
Commissioner Cassel: I have another sort of basic large question. That has to do with the
NKo-ffC-s-ii~ ~d-KutTdin-~.- Th-Kffritin~a~ o-bVi6~---ly--hTas-b~ffi~roceedmg ~e-K-gffffdy through
Council. It is going to have what looks like a last or a next to last reading in the next week
or two. So based on that, some changes are taking place in this document per se relevant to
that, I would presume. In what ways is that affecting the historic buildings here? Inside and
outside renovations? Some specific buildings are now covered or not covered?
A:PC0526Minutes Page 24
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
Mr. Riel: This document represents what the latest draft of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance proposes and will be adopted next Monday on second reading. In a nutshell, the
Historic Ordinance as proposed does not protect California properties. There are properties
on a Resource List which need to go through an evaluation. As a part of that evaluation they
either go on to the Register which is a protected property or they drop offthat. So that in a
nutshell is somewhat of a sttmmary of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. This plan as
proposed.does reflecttheJatest provisions of the. Historc preservatign .Or., .dinance.
Commissioner Cassel: If any more changes take place the Ordinance will be the prevailing
rules that will cover this plan?
Mr. Riel: That is correct.
Commissioner Burr: We heard from Steve Pierce that after or during the last Working
Group meeting there was a decision to significantly change the tone of the design guidelines
from very prescriptive guidelines to something that has been determined since that Working
Group meeting. It sounds like a constructive concept but have those new guidelines had a
oppommity to be aired before the Working Group? Have they really been able to be
explored? They seem to be a significant part of the entire plan and yet, by necessity from
the sequence and the urgency that this plan move forward on track, it seems that process
may .have been skipped.
Mr. Riel: It was discussed at the Working Group meeting. Obviously a member of the
Working Group can speak to this further. Mr. Pierce presented some fairly detailed
recommendations to the group that evening. Basically the Working Group said, Mr. Pierce
go work with Staffbased upon the direction that they gave him that evening. That end result
is what you have in your draft, the June 9th draft. Since the initiation of the June 9th draft I
haven’t been contacted by any of the Working Group members to indicate that there was any
particular problem or anything else.
Mr. Hassett: Many of the members of the Working Group had met previously with Steve to
hash out a lot of these issues. We pretty much gave him our blessings to go ahead and work
with Staff because we all were fairly united in our vision of what he was proposing. So I
think there is generally strong support from all members of the Working Group. I don’t
think there was anybody who felt we were going in the wrong direction.
Commissioner Burr: Larry, I understand that there was endorsement in concept of that
direction. Does the Working Group feel any need to look at the details of those changes
beyond just the conceptual endorsement?
Mr. Hassett: Obviously the whole process has been constrained by time limits of the
meetings. It would be nice to delve deeper into all of these. In all honesty, yes, I think we
probably should look at those again. Is that practical? Only if Staff and the Working Group
members could all agree to get back together on that and take a further look. I think as it
proceeds through this process and goes on ahead you’ll hear a little more discussion of it,
appropriately so.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
Mr. Riel: A lot of the changes that were made, previously we had strongly recommended,
recommended, and they were changed to strongly encouraged, and encouraged. Some of
what we called design standards are now guidelines. A lot of the more specific standards
were eliminated to allow additional flexibility. So there was a lot of modifications made to
allow the designer the flexibility but they still had the guidelines to guide them in the
development of their design. There is still a design review that would be required. So there
.is that additional protection or review, process..
Commissioner Bialson: I have an even more basic sort of question. I appreciate your
distributing the Ordinance Number 4454 which is the Coordinated Area Plan Ordinance that
was passed by the City Council in 1997. That helps me understand more precisely what
we’re trying to accomplish with the coordinated area plan. Would it be fair to say that the
coordinated area plan is somewhat of a more targeted comprehensive plan that is
geographically targeted?
Mr. Riel: It is a specific plan that provides land use and zoning and it’s a document that
stands on its own. So when a developer comes in and has a development proposal the intent
is that they would look to this document and it would guide them and include all the
development standards and guidelines and outline the review process. That’s why it is so
comprehensive and telephone book thick. You’ll note the appendices actually have, because
as a result of the plan there was a lot of existing zoning, we put the existing zoning
categories in the appendix: So it was meant to function on its own and to guide. One of the
overriding premises of this was tohopefully speed up the process in terms of going through
the review process. The appointment of the Working Group providing a vision for what
they felt was in the area. That was one of the primary goals. To plan out in front and try to
assist the development community as well as provide the residents that live there assurances
in terms of what will be built adjacent to their homes.
Commissioner Bialson: So it is somewhat of a road map for developers or purchasers of
this property as to what they can expect to happen.
Mr. Riel: Correct.
Commissioner Bialson: Like any road map, it can help you predict but it can also constrain
you. That’s what you are heating from us with regard to the design guidelines, standards,
etc. Thank you.
Chairman Byrd: I have a question perhaps for Larry because you made the comment on the
subject of the PC that there was a range of opinion among the Working Group on that
subject. My question concerns the underlying issues that animated that split. We’ve heard
members of the development community say, retain the PC in order to provide for
flexibility. My sense is that some of the anxiety around PC both in this neighborhood and
elsewhere in town concerns its use to increase intensity. If there was a way to preserve the
PC in order to accommodate design flexibility without exceeding FAR and other intensity
A:PC0526Minutes Page 26
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
restrictions, do you think that would meet the concerns of some of those on the Working
Group who opposed preserving the PC?
Mr. Hassett: No, I think it is a philosophical difference. I think what you have if you line
up the division among the members, you have the developers like Chop Keenan, and
builders like Steve Pierce, Marlene with the Housing Corporation. That group saw the
necessity to keep PCs so that there could be projects that don’t fit the box properly, to allow
them to proceed..~.On.the other side, .re_a!l.y, was.~the, residential members, the renters, Sarah,
and others that represented the neighborhood group. They really saw PCs as a way of
creating denser projects and projects that didn’t always meet what they envisioned for phase
I. We haven’t discussed PCs in phase II. For this area, phase I, there is really a split on that
in this group. Obviously you can argue both sides. I won’t even tell you what side I’m on so
I hopefully I will remain neutral.
Chairman Byrd: I heard you say the concem among the residential side was primarily with
the density and intensity. If that issue was alleviated and it was preserved for flexibility,
Sarah maybe you can speak to it, does that get us anywhere?
Ms. Cane: I’d just like to say that we felt or we were attempting to create the limits in the
plan. That we would have height limits, we would have FAR limits, and that would answer
those problems. We didn’t want to leave a gate open for closed door negotiations that would
change the vision that we had.
Chairman Byrd: So if a PC preserved all those, what I call intensity limits such as height
and FAR, but was allowed just to accommodate the design constraints such as trees and
other things would that be adequate? Or do you think that portion of the Working Group
would still be uncomfortable with a design accommodating PC?
Ms. Cane: I’m not positive I understand but I personally don’t think that I would have a
problem with that. I think it is certainly true that we do not all understand all of the
complexities of the problems. I would defer to the expertise as we did with Steve. We.
deferred to his expertise as a builder. So I think that everybody could probably be in concert
about that as long as we knew that we could count on the various height constraints and
setbacks and things like that.
Commissioner Cassel: Let me follow up on that. One of the problems with a limit is that
you don’t get for instance one of the desires many people have is that the side of the
development near an existing lower intensity use below in height. Yet, one of the ways you
can get the same number of units on it is at a point that is not close to a single family unit.
To be four stories it may mean that it has to be 40 feet and not 35 feet. You lose the
intensity of the units because you can’t gain that five feet thus you can’t go down to the
lower height along the edge. That’s what people come in for a lot of times for a PC. So we
lose that ability and yet we’ve lost the height limit but we may have gained keeping a
building lower in height near that side.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 27
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Ms. Cane: Personally that seems fine to me and I think that we wanted to defer to the Staff
review. I think we need to call it something other than PC because that term is just loaded.
I think we do understand that there need to be some safety valves. I think we favor that in-
house review with people who understand the process and know the overriding qualities of
our plan and would implement them with some flexibility. I don’t think we want to be
inflexible about it.
. Mr. Hassett: .Phyllis, 1 .also.think.tha.t..~e.z.eigh_b0rh99.djs a!. so ~.r..e_act~.,g in a lot of ways to
many of the PC projects that have gone on over the past five to ten years in theSOFA area.
They have created parking problems. They have created taller than normal buildings. There
¯ have been public benefits associated with the projects that have been somewhat skeptical
about their real public benefit. So I think the neighborhood is really reacting to some of the
previous projects that Jim Baer talked a little bit about. I think he gave his view. I think an
argument can be made on the other side too.
Commissioner Schmidt: Related to this, the plan has what is Called a Major Exception
Process. Would you think the kind of things we’ve been talking about could be incorporated
into the Major Exception Process? Or is that envisioned as a smaller than current PC
flexibility process?
Mr. Riel: From Staffs viewpoint I think what we’re going to be looking at is looking at the
PC process and obviously calling it something else. As the discussion has been, set up some
specific parameters in terms of maximum heights, maximum FAR, and make them
somewhat performance based: Whereas if you receive a 2.5 FAR you have to provide a
certain percentage of open space or something like that so it is quite clear. I think one of the
things that was brought out in the Working Group meetings was that the public benefit is
one thing that was really a benefit. They liked that and they didn’t want to lose that. We
understand and I think the community understands that. Defining that has been very
difficult throughout this process. What I’m saying is we would come up with a different
type of a process.
Mr. Dascombe: I think you asked a question about the Major Exception and how that might
work. The way we kind of outlined it is was for allowing a little bit of flexibility in a vein
that might create the sort of thing Commissioner Cassel was envisioning. The exception
findings are all listed on page 86. They are somewhat similar to variance findings with the
finding needing to be made that it is consistent with the .goals of the plan, and the
Comprehensive Plan, and the exception would result in an exceptional or a project that
contributes to the appearance of the site. So it may be that the Major Exception process that
is currently proposed could be modified to place some limits. At the moment there is a limit
on not permitting either floor area exceptions or exceptions to minimum densities in AMF
and DHS. So it already has some limits placed on it and those could be modified and
include others as well.
Chairman Byrd: Two questions that flow from the Medical Foundation. One concerns this
issue of elevating additional trees to heritage status. This may be for the Working Group
A:PC0526Minutes Page 28
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
representatives or Staff, was there much attention paid to that subject and how did that
decision emerge in the plan?
Mr. Riel: I would have to say that was not discussed at all at most of the meetings.
Obviously most of the discussion focused on the significant issues.
Chairman Byrd: Do the Working Group representatives feel strongly one way or the other
about the fig or.the .[jacaranda]? ............................
Ms. Cane: I think we did talk about trees, Eric. We talked about trees quite abit. There
was a lot of discussion about the location of the park because of the mature trees that are on
the clinic block which are in another place. I think we did talk about trees quite a bit and we
were concerned about making sure that trees would be preserved. Maybe it never became
an official conversation but I think that the overall idea of the group is to preserve as many
trees as possible.- We were educated about the fact that there are only certain trees that are
designated, as heritage trees. But I think that we were all hopeful that all of the trees would
saved. Does that answer your question?
Chairman Byrd: One more off the Medical Foundation’s list. The Medical Foundation has
asserted that its properties are the only ones in the plan area that will not retain
grandfathered non-conforming use status. I thought that was part of the deal with their
development agreement on the new site. If Staff could clarify that would help.
Mr. Pdel: That is correct. That is outlined specifically in th~ development agreement. That
was specifically relinquished as a part of.the development agreement.
Chairman Byr.d: So it is Staffs understanding that the Medical Foundation already
bargained away the non-conforming use status for these properties in return for development
authority on its new site.
Mr. Pdel: That’s correct.
Ms. Furth: Yes, when the Council and the Medical Foundation entered into the amendment
to the development agreement after there, were great changes at the last moment and they
decided to relocate r~ither than expand on-site part of that environmental review and
development agreement and project implementation was their wavier of their rights to
continue any medical clinic or r~lated uses in the area.
Commissioner Cassel: Let me do a follow up on that one. They are going to stay in the
Roth building at the present time, right?
Ms. Furth: There is an exception for a small clinic up to 13,000 square feet. That’s that
specific exception. This also doesn’t apply to buildings that they don’t own.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 29
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
Chairman Byrd: Tom, we’ll make an exception. Since you were a member of the Working
Group and we are allowing Working Group members to speak, give us your view on this
subject.
Mr. Shannon: We have all read that development agreement and the intention is that the
clinic would move Out of the main clinic block and another medical use would not be
allowed to go into that main clinic block. But nowhere can I find in the development
agreement where.it says non-conforming ..uses are set aside. We’ve scoured it pretty
carefully. So I’d like a clarification by counsel.
Chairman Byrd: We don’t necessarily have to do this in real time. We can come back to it.
Ms. Furth: I’m sure that you will want to hear from your regular counsel on this subject in
particular, that being the City Attorney. We will report back to you.
Chairman Byrd: Other questions?
Commissioner Burt: Yes, one of the speakers brought up the issue, in fact I think it was
Karen Holman from the Working Group, that the Bryant Street historic homes are
designated as AMF zoning. Can Staff comment on how we reconcile some of the
preservation concerns with that zoning?
Mr. Riel: That was discussed at the latter part of the last meeting in terms of possible
rezoning or making that property DHS. Some of the concern for Staff was that it was only
one or two homes that were in that area. The overriding concern when this plan was drafted
was that as you go from the top of the plan to the bottom in terms of.intensity level there
was supposed to be an increase in density from single family, multi-family, and then when
you get down to the mixed use areas. In terms of preservation there are four of those homes,
I believe, on Bryant Street or on the Resource List. So they would be required to go through
some type of an historic evaluation and then a determination of whether or not going on the
Register. In terms of the density there is no minimum density requirement and there is also
a 25% reduction in parking requirements.
Commissioner Burt: Is the.lack of a minimum density, AMF has a minimum density, so are
you saying in the plan it specifically says for that area there is no minimum density?
Mr. Riel: For historic structures there is no minimum density.
Commissioner Burr: So would that mean that those historic structures would only fall under
the no minimum density category if they are added to the Resource List? If they are not
added to the Resource List the plan would not provide any encouragement for protection or
absolute protection?
Mr. Riel: There is nothing specific that indicates that in the plan but my assumption would
be if the property is on the Register after evaluation from being on the Resource List that
they would be preserved under those provisions.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 30
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Burt: If they are not added to the Register then what?
Mr. Riel: They obviously have the opportunity to be removed or moved elsewhere which is
also within the plan but they would be provided no protection.
Commissioner Burr: Would the Working Group members like to comment on what if
¯ an3rthing.was the intention of the Working Group reg .arding thos.e properties?
Ms. Cane: Our intention was that those houses, the victorians on Bryant, be saved on-site if
at all possible. I think at our last meeting didn’t we say if they were moved they would be
moved within the plan area. That’s what I remember.
Commissioner Burr: The way this plan was just described, if they are not added to the
Register it does.not sound like they are given any of those protections that you just said were
your intentions.
Ms. Cane: I’m confused. I’m sorry, I don’t know how to answer that.
Mr. Hassett: I’ll try t° respond to Pat’s question. We were fairly well assured that these
properties probably would be protected and we went under that presumption. It was always
our intention that those buildings be preserved. If not on-site within the local area and we
discussed what that local area should be. I think we evaluated that on the basis of the
potential for the site being used for projects that might fit nicely on that property like a
senior housing or something like that. That it would then be the responsibility of the people
that developed that to first relocate those buildings and preserve them. I believe that was the
intention of the group. Do I have that right group?
Mr. Shannon: I agree with Larry’s recollection that we assumed that they’d be historic.
There was not extensive discussion on relocation. There were options to relocate. I think
Pat’s point is well taken depending on the course of the Historic Ordinance those buildings
could revert to AMF if they are not protected by historic preservation. Historic preservation
in this plan right now gives them relief from the AMF requirement which follows correctly.
I think that anyone who has ever dealt in housing moving business, I don’t think there is a
developer or a buyer that will actually incur the cost to relocate the house in order to
accommodate an AMF or multi-family structure. I just don’t think that is economically
feasible.
Commissioner Cassel: Let me ask a slightly different question on the same subject. Any
buildings that are now ia existence on these sites are not required to be tom down and apply
this new AMF zoning or whatever the zoning is. So if you’ve got a nice big beautiful
building and you want to put four apartments in it no one is going to tell you have to put ten
apartments in it because it doesn’t meet the zoning.
Mr. Riel: That’s correct.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 31
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Cassel: The building as it now exists would do whatever it is going to do.
So they don’t have to tear the buildings down. They don’t have to do something of that sort.
It is just when that happens or when someone wishes to do that sometime down the road this
is what will be allowed.
Mr. Riel: That’s correct.
Commissioner.Schmidt: .-I hav.e a.couplc._more.q~esfions re.!ate.d tO.the design.guidelines. It
is now my understanding that the development standards would be requirements and the
design guidelines would be strongly encouraged. Is that correct?
Mr. Pdel: That’s correct.
Commissioner Schmidt: So that in fact someone could read the design guidelines but do
something different l~om what’s suggested there?
Mr. Riel: It is our hope that they would come in, in terms of the pre-application process, and
we would work with them and try to guide them in that direction but obviously they are only
guidelines.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. k seems to me that it currently says in the exception
process that if someone is deviating from design standards that they have to go through an
exception process. I was wondering if that’s something that wording needed changing in
here or if that’s not. That seems to be in conflict to me. Under the review procedures. If
you would just look at that review proc.edures area and make sure that it is clear that the
design guidelines are recommended.
Mr. Riel: We’ll look at that and make sure they are consistent.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would also comment that I think the design guidelines as
presented now, the development standards and design guidelines, are much clearer and more
flexible, less detailed than they were previously. I think Steve Pierce did a very good job
guiding on that. I would still comment that there are some references that as an architect
that I think should be word-smithed. Maybe we’ll make a couple of recommendations for
that a little bit later. They are small but significant as far as I’m concerned as an architect.
Commissioner Bialson: Following up on that, with regard to the exception process. Could
one use a major exception on a-parcel-in which the minimum density.was not attained? In
other words, where there were supposed to be a minimum of 30 units but someone came in
and only wanted to put 25 units. Could the Major Exception process be used for that? Or
would that be something that would require a more Waditional PC?
Mr. Riel: Not the way it is written. The intent was not allow an exception to the minimum
density.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 32
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
Mr. Gawf: That is shown on page 86, first paragraph, last phrase. So if there are some
questions on that is where it is in the text.
Commissioner Bialson: So if you had a parcel that was very difficult because of design
reasons to shoehorn 30 units on to and someone came in and would rather perhaps give us
some public space as part of the public benefit that was being offered so that we could have
less massive buildings we have no procedure through this plan to allow that. Is that correct?
Mr. Riel: That’s correct.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you.
Commissioner Cassel: The other reason we might want to do that is we may want larger
units. The pr.oblem is if we wanted to put in larger units instead of smaller units we might
need to put in fewer units because we have to meet the height and massing limits.
Ms. Cane: I was just going to say we did discuss that very issue. We knew that the Housing
Corp. had designated family dwellings and that they wanted to make some larger units and
they saw a need for that and we saw that also. So we were aware that there is no designation
whereby there could be something between 16 and 30 units built. That seemed like a gap
that needed checking into. In the interest of time we weren’t able to make a different zoning
but we have had conversations about wanting maybe to have that easement. I don’t think the
Working Group would be opposed to having a lower density possibility.
Commissioner Burr: One of the questions regarding the phase II aspect. We have the areas
that are shaded in the plan and then a couple of policies that are not shaded. Policy L-6
which basically says that the SOFA area is an area of growth and that ff developed to its
highest potential it would accommodate a substantial portion of the non-residential
development allowed by the Downtown Cap. My question is, is that a policy that is really
still open to discussion as far as the amount of commercial versus the amount residential
development that would occur in the phase II area? And consequently, should it be one of
the shaded items?
Mr. Riel: Yes, it should be a shaded item and will be considered as a part of phase II. That
is one we overlooked.
Commissioner Burt: Great. One other follow up on the tree question. The plan is currently
written proposing that some of the- other significant .trees .that. are not-part of ourcurrent
heritage tree ordinance would be protected as heritage trees. In the interest of some
flexibility in the plan would it be better to substitute wording that advocates attempting to
preserve these trees and opposed to categorizing them as heritage trees of a new species?
This is on program DC-1, page 58.
Mr. Pdel: The way the program is written it says, consider. So it is a consideration. The
current ordinance although it does allow protection it is very limited in terms of types of
A:PC0526Minutes Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
trees. We felt that these trees given their location and their size were very important to the
overall tree cover of the area.
Commissioner Burt: But as it is written it doesn’t say to have strong efforts to preserve them
if possible. It says to consider placing them in the inflexible heritage tree category. As we
know our heritage tree ordinance is extremely rigid and inflexible in terms of removal of the
branches and various other things. So I would think it might be more appropriate to have
some other verbiage that would ad.¥,ocate,.attemp .’_t, ingt..o..preserve them s,,h,y of putting them in
the heritage tree ordinance.
Chairman Byrd: Before we start to segway into our comments let’s close on our questions
which hopefully we can do soon because we have a long way to go to discuss the plan.
Commissioner. Cassel: I have a question on the BMR program. Where are you with the
negotiations? The last I heard they hadn’t gone anywhere and that is the first primary
requirement of all developments in town.
Mr. Riel: Staffhas begun discussions with the Foundation. I would say in the next week or
two our intent is to finalize those discussions because obviously we need to be prepared with
a Staff report because July 26th is coming upon us very fast. So we’ve begun the
discussions and we are continuing those as we speak.
Commissioner Burt: At our last meeting there was discussion about what mechanisms
might be used to make the affordable housing units more available to teachers and other
vital public servants in the community. Is there any report back as to how we might be able
to utilize tools to achieve that goal?
Mr. Pdel: There were specific policies and programs indicated and I can’t find them right off
the top of my head. They do designate those units should go to those types.
Chairman Byrd: I think the question was whether those preferences were legal and whether
in fact it could happen. Staff was going to come back and tell us whether it could be
achieved.
Mr. Riel: I don’t know the answer to that at this point. I will have to get back with you on
that.
Commissioner Butt: One of the speakers-asked why the series of homes on Waverley to the
northwest of Homer are designated DHS when all of the surrounding parcels are higher
densities. Does Staffhave any comments on that?
Mr. Riel: The reason it was placed as DHS is to allow the flexibility to put the second unit
in the rear. The existing zoning I believe is RM-30 on those parcels and that does not allow
the second units. So by doing the DHS that will allow the oppommity for a second unit.
A:PC0526Minates Page 34
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
Commissioner Burr: There was another comment by a speaker questioning why ARB
would have the responsibility for the R-1 design review when they have not had that
responsibility in the past and have voiced an opposition to assuming that responsibility in
the past. Any comments on that?
Mr. Riel: The ARB is desirous to complete that. I’m not sure I understand. Was it Karen’s
concern that the HRB wouldn’t see it? I’m not quite clear on what her concern is.
Commissioner Butt: I believe that’s the case. That she was concernedthat HRB would not
review.
Mr. Riel: We went to the HRB last week and they were fairly confident that obviously if it
is an historic structure it would come to them anyway. We haven’t finalized our discussion
in terms of the design review portion of it. It could include an HRB and an ARB member in
an alternative process. That was just our first blush of doing something like that. So in
terms of closing out an HRB member that is not the intent.
Commissioner Schmidt: Just for clarification on that. The singly developed single family,
two family units just have Staff reviews.
Mr. Riel: That’s correct.
Chairman Byrd: Unless there are other questions I think it might be appropriate at this time
to segway into our discussion of the plan. Obviously if we need clarification we can ask
more questions. What I’d like to do again is address our comments on the June 9th version
of the plan back to Staff using the major categories that we used in our March 10th
discussion. So I’d like to begin with comment on issues related to housing and invite
comments from Commissioners on housing at this time.
Actually I want to add one caveat for Staff though before we make our comments. On the
summary of our discussion on March 10th Staff put in parenthesis numbers reflecting the
number of Commissioners that spoke to an issue. If that same format is used to report this
discussion to Council I wouldn’t want that to suggest that because one person spoke to it, it
wasn’t a high priority. Sometimes one person spoke to it and the rest of us sat here and
nodded.
Mr. Gawf: I think we would prefer that. If everyone is in agreement just one person can
express it. So we will-do that
Chairman Byrd: Fine. Who wants to begin on housing issues? Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I might as well start on housing issues. I’m disappointed we haven’t
got farther along on the BMR decision-making and negotiation. I think we should keep to
the 15% and I think we need to work hard at that and see what we are going to get with it.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 35
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
In this issue of affordable housing constraints, trees, historic structures, we’ve put in a lot of
requirements and malting it very hard. There is a lot balance in some of these issues. We
have a tree that is an historic tree and I don’t know how you are going to get the building
down around that tree without disturbing the tree. Just taking the existing building down is
going to be hard. So with affordable housing units and other units we’re going to have
constraints of these trees and I’m really concerned about how we get the balance between the
housing there and good replacement trees.
The DHS housing in what looks like a funny location up there those units now are smaller
than the surrounding units. Originally that was connected into the units which are now
located inthe park. They looked like they connected to something in past. I still like them
that way because it kind of preserves that space and keeps it a little less intense but it doesn’t
have the connection it had before. Before we had the park there and it looked a little more
logical.
I basically like the plan. I’m glad we increased the amount of multiple family housing
because when we put the park in we took out housing and we needed to increase the space.
I like the idea of a minimum density but I’m concerned that if we have larger traits we may
not be able to meet it. I think it should be part of the Major Exception process so that we are
looking at why we are not meeting it. Are we just not meeting it because of putting up a
fancy set of units that are going to be’very expensive or are we using it because it is the only
way we can put in some larger units? I don’t know how tight these constraints are. I think
that’s enough for the moment. I would obviously like to see the larger site for the affordable
units. I hate to use the term affordable so let me use low and very low income housing.
Today we need to think in terms of middle income housing and some of that hopefully will
get in here also which will meet many more of the needs I think of the professional staff and
other staffthat work for the City than some of the very low income houses.
Chairman Byrd: Other comments on specific housing issues?
Commissioner Schmidt: .I’d just like to support much of what Phyllis said regarding seeing
more attached multiple family on the plan this time. I’m happy to see the change in the main
block of the Medical Foundation. I too am concerned about the inflexibility of numbers of
units over all other considerations taken into account and I do hope we see changes that will
allow that. I also hope that we can quickly get a BMR agreement done that has 15%
contribution.
Commissioner Bialson: I support what Phyllis and Kathy indicated.
Commissioner Burr: I support it as well. More specifically I would support reducing the
minimum housing density requirement under AMF from the current 30 units to 20 units.
Chairman Byrd: I think at our last session I was the one that spoke most vigorously in favor
of minimum densities because I’d like to see those units delivered because we have a
housing crisis. But if it can’t pass the "it can be built" test then it really doesn’t advance the
cause of delivering more housing. So I would like to see the final plan take one of two
A:PC0526Minutes Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
approaches. One create two classes of AMF in order to be able to zone constrained sites to a
density somewhere between 17 and 30 so that something can be delivered on those sites if
30 is physically impossible. Or alternatively, make explicit the use of an exception process
to deliver less than the 30 minimum where the constraints require it. I tend to favor the
second just because I like the message that the minimum sends in the plan but I’d hate to
include message at the expense of the possibility of really delivering units. I think I’ve heard
the whole Commission speak to we don’t want to lose sight of the goal which the actually
delivery.of units.. ..............................................
I’m looking forward to the City revisiting the issue of delivery of housing in the MU- 1 and
MU-2. We won’t beat it to death tonight because it does seem that there is more housing
opportunity there that should be explored.
I would also continue to support the A_MF designation along Bryant Street below the main
block understanding that the Historic Preservation Ordinance will provide opportunities to
preserve those existing historic structures if possible. If they are not covered by that
ordinance or cannot be preserved and are in fact replaced they should be replaced with
multi-family and not a DHS housing stock. So I would like to see that remain.
Anything else on housing?
Commissioner Burt: Owen, I would like to follow on what you said about MU-1 and MU-
2. Although those details are not being addressed tonight I think it would be good if the
Commission conveyed their strong sentiments toward an increase in the amount of housing
in that area and a decrease in the amount of commercial versus what the draft plan proposal
currently has so that the Council would be clear on our inclination. It would also be good if
there were some mechanism to convey the sense of the Working Group on that subject as
well.
Chairman Byrd: We’ll leave it to the Working Group to convey its message. Unless I hear
different, I think that your first message is consistent with our discussion and notes from
March 10th that we’d like to see a balance in the MU-1 and MU-2 that is weighted more
toward housing and less toward other uses which is not the direction of the current plan.
Let me invite questions in the other direction for us from Staff on housing issues if we
haven’t covered anything you want us to cover. Now is the chance.
¯ Mr. Riel: No, thank you.-. .......: ..
Chairman Byrd: Let’s move on to issues of transportation and circulation and parking.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think the main circulation discussion that we had has really been
on the Homer/Channing issue. As it is stated now I’m certainly in support of what’s there
that we can have the two-way streets as long as it does work for both Whole Foods and
Channing House. Those are going to be a challenge particularly Whole Foods so that we
may see the one-way streets there for awhile yet. If there are solutions that work for those
A:PC0526Minutes Page 37
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
major tenants down there and I would disagree with a member of the public saying that they
are okay there. They are really important features in Downtown. It is important to have a
grocery store Downtown that people can walk to in that area. Channing House has been a
great tenant of that area for 35 years. I think we need to pay attention to the needs of those
them.
Commissioner Bialson: I’d like to speak to the main issue in circulation which is the
conversion to a two-ways, street .... On page .38 _we have, Policy T-8 which requires the
conversion and goes on to say that it should not adversely affect the needs of Whole Foods
and Channing Avenue. I’m assuming that is Channing House and that was merely a typo. I
for one do not necessarily agree that a conversion to two-way streets when we have dealt
with the issues that address the concerns of Channing House and Whole Foods is sufficient.
I think the City is .looking at transportation as a very important aspect and one that this
Commission is going to take on. I would like further study done before we sit here and
assume that a two-way street is going to accomplish what we are talking about. I don’t see
any grounding for some of the positions taken with regard to two-way streets. I don’t see
any consideration of what impact it would have on adjacent streets although they are not
within this coordinated plan I think they need to be studied and looked at. So I would like to
strike T-8. I can support T-9 and T-10 on the following street if we can put something in T-
10, the second line where we say accommodate mack deliveries which may be affected by,
and I’d like to put in the words "a possible change from one-way street pattern to two-way."
In other words, I’m saying this issue requires more study and consideration. While I
appreciate all the work done by the Working Group they acknowledged that they felt
somewhat rushed is what I heard and I don’t want to make these changes and cast them in
stone without further study. In addition I am not sure of what other uses may come in
besides Whole Foods and Channing House which may prefer to have a one-way street rather
than a two-way street. I’d like to see what, as a one-time resident about 32 years ago
Webster fight across from Channing House, maybe I just became used to the one-way
configuration. As a safety matter I think of what would happen when people use that street
continuing to think of it as a one-way and finding that it is a two-way. I think head-ons
collisions are even more of a risk.
Commissioner Cassel: Interestingly enough I was listening to the City Council meeting and
they were talking about stop signs. They were having a long discussion on stop signs on
Channing Street on the other end which is two-way and going to fast. So they need to do
calming measures on the two-way street that is going in the other direction because people
are using the other direction as through-way going in the opposite direction. The ultimate
goal here isthat we-get.traffic calming .into this neighborhood so that wedo not have people
running through the neighborhood so that it is comfortable to cross the streets and move
around and people don’t feel like they have a major artery running through the
neighborhood. That’s what we’ve got to work on. I hadn’t thought of it that way before. I
had always thought of the two-way street automatically becoming the traffic calming.
Maybe if we look at it as a one-way street maybe better look at it in terms of how we are
going to keep that traffic calm, rtmuing at a reasonable speed, and safe so that people who
are in the neighborhood don~t feel like they are nmuing an artery down the street. I think
there is going to be more of a tendency to use it as an artery than there is now because of the
A:PC0526Minutes Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
fact that so many people come as far as the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and stop there.
They are turning in and out and slowing this down. When you don’t have that you may have
less traffic and then you may have the tendency to run the whole length of it. So the
ultimate goal we have to keep in mind no matter what we do, if it stays one-way it must get
calmer and if it goes two-way we have to look at how to cross people.
Commissioner Burr: I concur with some of the comments and concerns that have made but
perhaps a-voiding, change.~to Polic.y.T,.8 c.o.uld addr,ess so.m., e of tho,se..IP_st, ead of a blanket
convert the existing one-way traffic to two-way on Homer and Channing, which I do
support the conversion, we could have wording that says pursue the conversion to two-way
in conjunction with other traffic calming measures. Then retain the sentence that says this
conversion should not adversely affect Whole Foods and Channing House.
Commissioner Bialson: Can you say that again?
Commissioner Butt: Yes. The entire wording would be: Pursue the conversion of the
existing one-way traffic circulation pattern of Homer and Channing Avenue and a portion of
High Street to a two-way traffic circulation pattern in conjunction with other traffic calming
measures. This conversion should not adversely affect the needs of Whole Foods and
Channing House.
Chairman Byrd: Because we are doing this tonight in the form of comments and not
motions, is that acceptable to the previous speaker?
Commissioner Bialson: No, it is not. I think it still says it is going to be converted. I think
you can have ’consider’ perhaps or something like that. I do not take as an absolute that
traffic calming will occur when you bring these two streets to two-way. I think there are
more sophisticated ways of handling traffic calming and perhaps better ways other than
changing them to two-way. I think that is a simple solution that perhaps may not be a real
solution.
Chairman Byrd: I think the sense of the Commission back in March was we’ll punt. We’ve
heard both sides and there are some technical challenges and we don’t yet have a fixed
opinion. I’m hearing tonight that there are still either no fixed opinion or a range of opinion
or that this needs more study. Pat, if you’re wording said ’consider conversion’ instead of
’pursue conversion’ is that flexibility there?
Commissioner Burr: I -think that is-too weak .for me..I!d be curious to hear what the other
Commissioner’s think about it.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would actually be willing to go with ’consider.’ I think it is going
to be really difficult. I think that traffic calming is really the goal. As I said I supported the
two-way with the caveat that indeed the two main difficult areas on the street be taken care
of. I think it is just going to be difficult to solve that problem. Traffic calming, safety, those
are the real goals and I think as long as it is mentioned in here, it has been discussed a lot, I
think ’consider’ would be adequate.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 39
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
Chairman Byrd: I agree with Kathy. This issue is clearly unresolved in the minds of the
Working Group, Staff, and Commission. So let’s not lock in either way for now. Let’s see if
there is a technical fix to the Channing and Whole Foods issues. Let’s see if other traffic
calming devices are available. And let’s keep the goal of traffic calming in mind and not put
the technique in front of the goal. Whether it is one-way or two-way can be resolved.
Commissioner~Bialson: This.brings up the. p.oint that I wo.uld want to.raise ..about this whole
process which is I don’t know exactly how much the Working Group had access to experts
either in transportation or in other arenas. I appreciate all the work they did but to come up
with something that does not seem to be part of the Comprehensive Plan and therefore does
not have a limited life in effect until it is replaced. I’m not heating that this document is
going to be replaced at some point in the future.
Mr. Riel: There was a separate transportation consultant acquired for this study in addition
to Transportation Staff. What this basically did is the Comprehensive Plan says analyze the
conversion of Homer and Channing. So as a part of the study that is what was completed.
The group did have access to documents and data. Also the EIR had obviously information
on it as well.
Commissioner Bialson: So they did have access to some expert?
Mr. Riel: Yes, and they had presentation by that expert.
¯ Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate that but I don’t think the process was long enough for
thought and consideration to be given to this one area that would be suflqcient to change the
streets.
Mr. Hassett: I think this is one area that it looks like the view of the Working Group is
uninformed and ambiguous and not really solid in one way or the other. I think the message
that we heard from the neighborhood with the exception of Channing House universally was
we’d like to see those street revert to two-way for many reasons. There were many, many,
many people from the neighborhood that came up and spoke to that issue. I think the
Working Group unanimously agreed that it was in the best interest of what we were trying
to accomplish in this area especially considering that we were including things like child
care and p~ks in the area, that we needed all measures that would calm traffic and reduce
traffic on those two arteries. In addition, the only concern was what that impact would
really do to-Whole Foods. To some extent to Channing.House but understanding that most
of us felt that the Channing House issues were really something that could be fairly easily
addressed and Carl spoke to us a couple of times on those issues. I don’t think there is any
ambiguity from the Working Group that we fully support changing those back with the
recognition that there were problems with Wh-dle Foods in particular.
Chairman Byrd: Let’s bring our discussion/recommendation here on circulation to closure.
Is there anything else other than this one-way/two-way issue that people want to comment
on.
A:PC0526Minute~Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
Commissioner Cassel: Yes, part of the circulation I presume is the underpass to the other
side of the tracks. I far prefer going underneath the tracks to going over them. I tend to
dislike going over 101 which is an overpass at Oregon and was pleasantly surprised by
going on the new underpass in Mountain View. I approached that very angry that I found
myself in a position where I had to go under that at 5:00 o’clock on a dark night, but I got to
it and it was quite pleasant, Much more open than I thought. It was more of a surprise than
I thought~zonsidering--how,,angry I..w~as. I hope w~.do.this., I know~ we ar.en’t going to do all
these things at one time but it will be very helpful in connecting us across and helping us to
be encouraged to walk and bike rather than drive cars just because it will be easier to cross
there.
Commissioner Bialson: I support Phyllis’ statements with regard to the underpass. The
other circulation issue that I see would be the possible extension of Scott Street. I support
the Working Group’s recommendation that it not be extended at this time.
Commissioner Schmidt: I also wanted to briefly comment about the underpass. I’m really
happy to see it on the map this time. I don’t think it was on the physical plan before and it’s
there now so that means it might happen. I’m also very happy to hear that we might be next
in line for [Ice-teal funding next year. So this could become a reality and I think it would be
a great connection between the two sides of the tracks.
Chairman Byrd: One of the public speakers talked about bike and ped use on Scott Street
through the existing Scott Park. My memory is that there is a path right there connecting
Scott Street with Channing. Is that correct?
Mr. Riel: Yes there is.
Chairman Byrd: That should p~obably be called out on page 43 that talks about the
proposed bicycle routes and improvements. I think the legend includes references to
existing bike circulation and then there is another chart that does the same thing for
pedestrian circulation. Just to make that clear. I too am thrilled to see that the Scott Street
extension has been removed. I was the one in the last notes in the little parenthesis that
talked about it.
I don’t want to open the whole philosophical can of worms here tonight about parking
requirements. But I do want to note that the program in here that speaks to parking is pretty
adamant about requiring-all thedifferent uses to meet all their parking demand on-site. Both
from the environmental and transit oriented perspective in making a shift in modes and also
from the perspective of can it be built, I do think we are going to have to enable ourselves to
have a little bit of flexibility around parking requirements especially in the MU-1 and MU-2
as we go, if we have any hope of both shifting transportation patterns and building out the
lovely aspirations of this plan. So I would like the City to consider softening somewhat the
language of Policy T-5 on page 37 by saying something to the effect of requiring adequate
on-site parking as appropriate or with inside constraints. Something to, suggest a little bit of
flexibility around that subject.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 41
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
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Bialson: I absolutely agree with you. I think Policy T-5 needs to be softened
in order to further the goals of the plan.
Commissioner Schmidt: I agree also.
Commissioner Burr: I agree as well and especially when we have the possibilities of some
alternat.ive programs.that.might alleviate the need for certain..on~site p~king where we need
to have the flexibility that would encourage that.
Chairman Byrd: Great. Unless there is anything else on parking and transportation and
circulation issues let us move on to the issue of the park. Is there anything more to say
about the park?
Commissioner Bialson: I would like as much as we can get obviously. It is interesting to
see the drawings and sort of scheme that Lynn Hollyn showed us. It sort of echoed to a
certain extent some of my discomfort with having all the open space put in one area. I was
trying to figure out some way we could have this amount of park land and yet get some
Pockets. Whether they be pocket parks or open space by developers throughout this region,
especially now that we have the attached multi-family together. I’m trying to find a way to
.perhaps even borrow some of that acreage if we possibly can and disburse it a little bit more
to perhaps address the issue of the bulk and the mass that is created. I don’t have anything in
mind except to say that it would be nice to and I would like to see that possibility here but I
can’t come up with anything. I’m sure the Working Group addressed some alternatives that
have some park land distributed further. Did the Working Group at all address that?
Mr. Riel: I can answer yes. Pocket parks were talked about early on in the process. There
is a policy or a program in here that does encourage it on private sites and private
developments as well.
Commissioner Bialson: I again say that is part of why I would like to see the PC process
here. I think that is going to get us some pocket parks or some public space on private
property.
Commissioner Schmidt: That speaks to the need for having flexibility in the design process
when it gets to really trying to make things work. Lynn Hollyn’s drawings brought that to
mind too that once you start working with real ideas and real projects and trying to relate to
the area, try to work with historical character,.work.with the.trees and so :on, it is going to be
really useful to have flexibility.
Commissioner Burr: Regarding the issue of small pocket parks and smaller open space areas
I concur ~ a very nnportant go--~ to scatter them ~ough~pment area.
One specific form of open space that I’d like to encourage for the AMF zone is consideration
of some small community garden spots. Within the AMF areas often we have passive
landscaping that serves very little purpose and people who live in higher density
developments lose the opportunity to have small garden spots. I’d certainly like to see that
A:PC0526Minutes Page 42
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
practice encouraged in the design to utilize some of that passive landscaping instead for
community building, community gardens, however small they may be.
Commissioner Cassel: I was going to argue for most of the space going in larger spaces for
almost that same reason. I think we’ve got some of that space up in Johnson Park. We need
some pocket park space and we may not want to put all of the 2.5 acres there but you Want
to put a substantial portion of it there so you can get some of the larger activities, activities
that take more space than-a pocket park. I think if~you.loook at how n.e.a.Oy Johnson Park was
done they do have some garden spaces in Johnson Park. It fits nicely with the other more
passive activities and the more activities. I don’t want to make this too small and split it up
too much and then we don’t get the active activities that we need.
Commissioner Burt: Just to clarify, my concept is in the private lands to encourage
common garden space in lieu of passive landscaping that often occurs in those private
developments.
Chairman Byrd: Pat, I like eating my landscaping too. Let’s revisit that when we get to
design standards. Right now I just want to make sure that Staff is clear about our issues
around the PF zone. I want to echo Phyllis’s comments as strongly as possible. I live two
houses off of Johnson Park in the most dense part of this town. Big aggregations of open
space are what relieve density. That’s why it is so important to have as large-a park as
possible on that main block. I know it is not really the Commission’s charge to look at
financing issues but I want to go on record as saying that I’m happy to deal away the existing
Scott Street acreage in a heartbeat if it’s needed to support acquisition of the PF lands on the
main block. We need big open space to relieve big density I want to have big density
around here but it takes big open space. So I’m delighted to see the direction that the
planning for the main block has gone.
Commissioner Schmidt: Also to make it clear that I really support the large park there also.
I think, as one of the commenters noted, it really kind of aggregates some other public space
down there with the history museum across the street. It also works with the church. It
actually keeps an open space that exists right now in the parking lot. It wil! just be a much,
much nicer open space. It also does a whole lot for the whole Downtown area and really
makes kind of a nice progression of park spaces from north Palo Alto to this down to the
Gamble Garden Center. It is nice good size chunks of open space. I’m really happy to see it
there. Also I’m happy to see the nice discussion of real financing possibilities for this too..
Commissioner Burt: I obviously support the park as well. I acknowledge that the funding is
going to be a real challenge but I’m glad to see that Staff has pinpointed several different
prospective funding mechanisms that together afford the real possibility of being able to
acquire the park. I think this entire plan and all the things that are going on in the City
today. If we look back 50 years from now probably there would be one thing that would be
acknowledged as a great contribution that was made by the City at this time and this Council
and that would be the creation of this park land. It would be remembered and appreciated
for a great while. So I think it is a major accomplishment if it can occur.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
Chairman Byrd: One last park-related comment. There was one comment I believe it was
from the representative from the museum about her desire to have a parking lot in between
the Roth building and the park. I think that use at that location would really compromise the
park values. So I would urge us not to look to site a parking lot on the main block that
would serve uses offthe main block.
Commissioner Cassel: I think there is a plan to have some parking there to serve the Roth
building., k.would be-next.to.the Roth building...,.The. Ro~. building is. going tO have to have
some parking.
Mr. Riel: That’s correct and they would have to provide parking for the Roth building. The
intent is to try to use as a shared parking for the Williams House as well the Roth building.
Chairman Byrd: It goes back to those earlier comments about parking requirements. Unless
there is anything else on the park let’s move on now to design standards, building issues,
historic issues, aesthetic issues.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, and I’ll jump in with my design guidelines issues. As I
noted before I’m very happy to see the formatting changes and the simplification of the
standards and guidelines. I still think it will be interesting to see what happens when we
start using these. There is the need for flexibility to see what will actually work on the
various City sites of odd shapes and sizes and with trees. So, again I hope we do have
enough flexibility in the final plan. In the guidelines there are a couple of things that I
personally would like to see have a slight modifcafion in the terminology. In the
architecture section on page 96, in the. first part, second sentence there is a statement,
"contemporary reinterpretations of the styles" referring to the kinds of things in the SOFA
area, etc., "are encouraged." To me that is saying lets make a little victorian village. Let’s
make little copies of old styles. I think I have heard members of the HRB saying they don’t
want to see a bunch of copies of historic houses. I would just like to see wording changed to
eliminate the ’reinterpretation’ concept. Something like, ’contemporary designs which are
compatible in scale, color, articulation, and form,’ to kind of minimize the idea that you
should be making modern copies of old styles. That wording is used in both the single
family and multiple family. I’d like you to examine that.
The other area, under roof forms on the next page in 2.5A talks about, again the second
sentence, "using pitched roofs, dormer windows, chimneys, and so on, to add variety and
make roofs attractive when viewed from higher buildings." In my opinion one of the
problems with many-of the residential, designs today are too many ,roof planes. You can
look at just about any of the houses that people don’t like and there are too many roof planes.
I would ask that you delete the reference to adding variety. I think the idea of pitched roofs,
dormer windows, chimneys, other traditional residential forms are fine. But to say the
purpose is to a variety is e wrong message to give. I=ffJli~k=~iff~N-o occurs m ihe
multiple family sections. I don’t lmow if you need to say that roofs need to be attractive
when viewed from higher buildings but that is a small point. I’m more concerned about the
variety.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 44
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
Commissioner Bialson: I absolutely agree with Kathy in regard to 2.1 and 2.5. We don’t
want this to be a Disneyland interprets Palo Alto setting. I fear that happening. This again
goes back to perhaps why we have improved the design standards and guidelines a great
deal from the plan we reviewed a couple of months ago. I still think that we are giving the
wrong message by having such precision in the standards and guidelines. I would rather see
a performance based sort of analysis and goal than a design plan or the rather picky
provisions that we have here. This takes me to a question that I probably should have asked
..previously. What .~ould be the..system or method that..woul,d b.e ~sed by furore City
Council’s to alter this language? If we found that it had, as any legislation sometimes does,
unintended consequences how would we alter this?
Mr. Riel: It would be via an amendment to this plan.
Commissioner Bialson: So we’d have to go through amending the plan at that point. Would
that be any different than just coming forth with an ordinance?
Ms. Furth: It is interesting. The code says that an ordinance adopting a coordinated area
plan may establish procedures for amendments to the plan. So that’s one of the things that
you could set up. At a minimum it would have to be an ordinance because this is an
ordinance. But as to what kind of procedure it should go through that’s one of the things you
can give direction on.
Commissioner Bialson: I’d like the Council to know that I for one, as a member of the
Commission, am very fearful of being so specific in a document that does not have an easy
method for amendment and alteration. I think the Council will have to come back and visit.
this again because it has no expiration date. And unfortunately human beings do not have
perfect 20/20 vision. We don’t know what is going to happen and to be so precise as to what
we want now to be applicable ten or fifteen years from now I think is a mistake. I think we
need more flexibility, less specificity, and I go back to the PC process being necessary.
Commissioner Cassel: This is sort of tied into the Historic Ordinance in a strange way.
That is that the City Council has been discussing for some time this Historic Ordinance and
these design review issues. Do we want design review? Then we’ve taken design review
out of the historic issues to discuss later. I don’t have a pro and con on it at this point I just
think we need to remember that just as the Historic Ordinance is adjusting how the plan
looks at how we are going to be dealing with historic issues, so to the design issues are
going to be related to any future discussion on how much design review we have. I think it
is important that we made the changes that were made so that it wasn’t too fight.
Mr. Gawf: Just a reminder that for anything but basically single family houses developed
individually there is already design review. So most of this area, especially now with the
AMF for the residual of that main block, most of this is going to be required to have design
review even without this plan.
Commissioner Bialson: We’d go through design review but we’d-still be subject to the
requirements of this plan, would we not? So if someone came in with something that was
A:PC0526Minutes Page 45
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
perhaps original or creative but didn’t meet the precise requirements here they would be in
violation of the plan. Is that correct? I know they have a minor exception provision.
Mr. Gawf: And major exception.
Commissioner Bialson: The whole idea of this plan, I thought, was to give predictability or
to allow an easing of the development process. And yet if we have these specific provisions
in here.and say,.you can-always,ask for a.minor exc.e.ption _or a m~or exception, don’t we fly
in the face of what we’re trying to accomplish?
Mr. Riel: That is a lot of the changes that were made by Mr. Pierce in terms of making it
more flexible. A lot of the specific requirements were removed. There was a lot that was
deleted from this. Again there are guidelines.
Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate that this work is done. I think it is a huge step ahead. I
think you are in the right direction but there is still work to be done. This is still too specific.
Mr. Gawf: Let me just add one comment about the need for change in the future because I
can assure you that there are mistakes in here. I just don’t know where they-are because we
tried to correct them but there will be mistakes and errors and things that we want to change.
One of the things that I think is important is that we as a community and as an organization
commit to a review after one year or 18 months. We just sort set it in place. Eighteen
months is probably an appropriate time frame that we say we are going to look at it.
Whatever has been done during that time period just to see if we are going in the right
direction. If not, then make the changes.
Commissioner Bialson: ! appreciate that. That would be a great goal but things tend to slide
in other issues whether they be historical resources or whatever tend to come into sway, and
we don’t have a sort of form of technical corrections legislation that automatically follows
after legislation such as this. So again I would rather be more specific in the future than try
to remove the specificity at some point in the furore.
Commissioner Burt: I’d just briefly like to have us look at the goals and objectives of the
plan under design, character, scale and compatibility that were the Council adopted goals. I}
doesn’t answer all of our questions here but it does state that we would promote design that
continues existing character of the area and provide development standards and design
guidelines to among other things provide for compatibility of character. So that doesn’t
answer all-of our questions about how. specific we should be but it does answer .the issue of
whether it is proper for this plan to attempt to have design, guidelines. It is part of the
assigned objectives.
Commissioner Scb_midt: I would just like to support what Ed said about a possible review
after 18 months. After Wyrme suggested that we could put into this some sort of
mechanism to address this. In a lot of other work we have done we have had a review at
specific times. I think that would be a very helpful thing to do.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 46
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Bialson: Are you suggesting some sort of sunset clause? I see no other way
that a review be done. It is a nice provision to put in and it makes us all feel real good now
but speaking practically, will it be done?
Mr. Gawf: One way to enhance that ability to have it done is to recommend to Council that
Council direct Staff. Then it becomes something that we do track. I know very well
because I have a whole list of things that are Councildirection to Staffto complete. There is
a tracking, of.it, by-the, administration_ They check.with you.. every so o.,ften to see how you
are doing on these items. So that is a more assurance if you will.
Commissioner Cassel: I can assure you we’ve.had items come back to us that have been
tracked in the past. Nothing as big as this but some other items have come back to us.
Ms. Furth: Annet(e, this doesn’t address the concern about will the City have sufficient time
and resources to come back and address this when it would be appropriate to do so but there
is language in the plan on pages 86 and 87 about amendment procedures. It envisions, I
think I’m not totally clear on this, two kinds of amendments. Some seen as more significant
requiting more Council participation and some not. One thing you may want to do is take
your particular concerns about the design guidelines if that’s an area where you particularly
think that change is likely to be necessary and provide for. that in some more expeditious
way.
Commissioner Bialson: I am concemed that the political realities would be that any
tinkering with this would perhaps blow up in size and cause there to be perhaps constituents
on one side and constituents on the other side. What that leads to is no change. So again, I
leave this but I really feel strongly that we should reduce the specificity and then add it as
we see it being necessary.
Commissioner Butt: I would like to recommend that Council direct Staffto review the need
for changes in 18 months from now. Any changes that have been observed as necessary in
.the plan.
Chairman Byrd: Are these changes just of the design guidelines or are we speaking more
broadly to the whole plan?
Mr. Gawf: I was. thinking actually of the entire plan because there may other aspects of.it
that work or don’t work. I think most of the comments were on the design standards but
again I was thinking of having a point in time where we.do stop and reflect.
Commissioner Burt: I would support that.
Chairman Byrd: I support it as wdll: I don’t think 1-8 months akCter th~ i~drtStio-n oftin% plgm
we are going to have enough experience of people trying to build anything under it to know
for sure.if it works or if it doesn’t. But we can keep coming back to it.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
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
I’d like to move us forward to a couple of other issues that have been on my list under this
topic heading. One is this issue of trees that was raised earlier. I would like to limit the
reference to heritage trees to those that are covered by our Heritage Ordinance. Build out
under this plan is going to be difficult enough without ambiguity about non-heritage trees
being preserved. While there may be CEQA mitigation opportunities for the City to impose
a condition that would require certain trees being preserved I just think it goes into way too
much depth and provides too many constraints and is inconsistent with the other priorities of
the plan to.call, out.figs and.[j acarandas]...and such in.Lhi$.,pla~!,.,,. .....
Commissioner Cassel: When I read this I was concerned about it but we do in all of our
developments look at the trees that are on the site and try to preserve as many as possible.
In that sense I’d like to keep that going. We have tried on many sites that we have seen as
part of the PC projects to save as many trees as we can. I think we want to contio, ue that
process.
Chairman Byrd: I agree. My fear is that the way this is currently phrased obligates us to
preserve those trees as opposed to requiring us to try to preserve them. That is the
distinction.
In terms of single family design review, one member of the public suggested that that task
be performed by HRB. I do not think that is appropriate. I think HRB has expertise in
preserving historic structures not in the design of new structures. If we have to have design
review of single family homes in this plan area at all, which I don’t really favor, it ought to at
least go to ARB because that is where the expertise lies.
Finally I would very much like to keep the PC. I think a lot of the better buildings in this
community in the past 10 or 15 years have been delivered through the PC. If the fear in the
neighborhood is around, of all people Jim Baer said it well, real clever developers doing
bigger, faster, more, etc. Then let’s come up with a modified PC that would enable
flexibility in a developer’s approach to a site while preserving the basic envelope as defined
in terms of the intensity envelope that is defined by the rules of this plan.
Commissioner Burr: Owen, I support that in concept. I think that a way to address it may
be under the Major Exception and rather than a PC call it an ME. That is an exception that
does not allow for increased density but does allow for other latitude in design.
Commissioner Schmidt: I support the need for flexibility. If it is a modified PC where we
still get a public benefit I think that would a good option. If it is an ME that works well then
that would be okay also. I still think that until we really have someone try to put a project
together on any of these sites I think we still need some flexibility. There has been a ton of
great work done but I still think we need that flexibility too.
Commissioner Bialson: A rose by any other name might be appropriate here to quote
because we are saying we’ll call it something else in order to avoid the connotation that PC
seems to have in the community but there is a value in using PC. We all know what it is,
we’ve dealt with it before, there isn’t a question. Again, this goes to the overriding issue of
A:PC0526Minutes Page 48
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
why we are doing a coordinated area plan to provide some predictability. I think we can
provide that predictability a little easier if we have a PC-type of process that we’ve all
worked with. To try to craft a PC process into this Major Exception, or ME, I think there
might be something we miss. We are down to the very end now. We’ve got like a week or
so for Eric to present this to City Council and for City Council to bless something. So I’d
rather have PC and know what I’ve got rather than try to use this document as the basi~ for
what we are going to have to live with in the future. I think we talked about it earlier, I just
want .to.make.sure that this is.stated,~thatminJ.mums ~can.be altered..Previgusly there was no
alteration in the DHS and AMF zones for a reduction in the minimum density. Whether it is
an ME or a PC we need that.
Ms. Furth: In thinking about this, one of the choices that you have is that a PC is a zone
change. It is a legislative action. It is referendable. It follows a particular pattern. A Major
Exception would not be. It would be quasi-judicial. I think that you could write it so that it
had the conditional use permit aspect so that the public benefit was a SOFA or Downtown,
or whatever you thought the appropriate area was, specific public benefit that that was the
good which is sort of like a conditional use permit process. This is a use that is desirable but
needs to be treated specially. I do think you have a significant choice between whether you
want to say let’s have an exception process where we said these are the things about which
we don’t vary but these are the things that we think should be flexible in order to get where
we are trying to go, which is a-quasi-judicial kind of thing. Or whether you want a PC
which is a couple basic rules after that you present a new proposal as a legislative proposal.
Chairman Byrd: I’m not sure we can, especially at this hour, get through that but I just want
it communicated to Council that some flexibility needs to be preserved through either an
existing PC or a modified PC.
Commissioner Cassel: I hate to give up my PC. I like the power, we get a lot out of it. On
the other hand not having to use it, we’ve been talking about how do we allow housing to
develop without putting people through the public benefit aspect. Since part of the public
benefit aspect is the housing itself. So if you can get that flexibility through this Major
Exception process maybe we’ve gained what we want particularly in this part of the town
without the legislative processes allowing this to proceed and as we evaluate it in 18 months
and see if something gets built or doesn’t get built. Maybe that will be our compromise that
we’re looking for.
Chairman Byrd: Alright are there any other comments about design issues, historic issues, if
not let me move us on to other or miscellaneous and have people look at their lists and make
sure that any other feedback we want to give to the Council about this version of the plan
now is the moment.
Commissioner Burt: One small one, the Lynn Hollyn’s renderkigs showed a care in the park
or adjacent to it. Does the current PF zoning allow for that kind of activity?
Mr. Riel: No, not in a PF.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 49
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
Commissioner Butt: I would certainly like to see some potential for a small care or
something like that to be part of the park area if possible.
Chairman Byrd: What about the snack stand at Rinconada?
Commissioner Burt: Close enough.
.Chairman Byrd: That’s. a PF
Commissioner Butt: Yes, just something like that, a kiosk,, or something where people can
get a coffee there if that ends up being part of the design concept that the community favors.
Chairman Byrd: Anything else?
Commissioner Cassel: Let me say that I like the idea that they have now. That is to put
these small shops down a little farther which is now in the MU district.
Chairman Byrd: Anything else?
Commissioner Schmidt: Under other, I just want to comment that I’m glad that there is a
phase II to this. I think that area does indeed need more analysis and more work and I’m
also happy to hear the suggestion of adding a Planning Commission, Architectural Review
Board, Historic Resources Board membership potentially to the group that does the
Working Group on that next phase. Also I wanted to compliment Staff on the use of the
video design tool. I think that will be very helpful for the next phase. It was very nice to see
it this evening. That’s a great tool that you have found.
Commissioner Bialson: I’ve been rather aggressive in some of my positions and that comes
as a surprise given my occupation, I’m sure. However, I do want to commend the Working
Group and Staff. I think there is a lot of good in the plan and I’m zeroing in on issues
because I too, somewhat like the Working Group, feel a little rushed on this. I don’t like
having to do this sort of thorough analysis in a rush. But I do appreciate all the efforts that
were put into it. Thank you.
Chairman Byrd: I’d like to return to the issue of non-conforming use status for the clinic’s
properties. I think this is a really important subject. Has Staff had a chance, since it came
up last time, to determine whether or not it is covered by the other development agreement?
Ms. Furth: I think this is one matter on which you really need to be advised by Ariel. He
was present for the negotiation of this and has worked with the Staff on analyzing it. He’ll
be back on Monday.
Chairman Byrd: Then let me state an opinion that can guide Ariel. If the clinic bargained
away its ability to preserve non-conforming uses on its lands within the PAMF/SOFA area
as part of its achieving development entitlements over on E1 Camino, then tough luck, it’s
gone. If on the other hand, that is not contained in the development agreement the City has
A:PC0526Minutes Page 50
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
45
46
a profound choice in frontit. Whether it wants to treat the clinic the same as all the other
property owners in the plan area or whether it wants to still impose a requirement that the
clinic not enjoy non-conforming use oppommities because it is the clinic that moved out and
so it is the clinic’s lands that ought to more quickly to through change. It strikes me that the
equity sort of favors treating the clinic the way everyone else is treated if the clinic didn’t
deal away that right in the development agreement.
Commissioner.J3urt:., On.a separate.s~bject I wo.u!.,d ".li~...e, to commen..d, not .0rdy the Working
Group but the neighborhood for really setting precedent in the City in their acceptance and
encouragement of not only medium density housing adjacent to their own single family
homes but the encouragement of affordable housing and low income housing in their
neighborhood. I just don’t recall another neighborhood in the City who has been proactive "
in their encouragement and receptivity to those kinds of.programs. We all would like to
have them City-wide but I think it has really shown a lot on behalf of this neighborhood that
they have been receptive to them in this plan.
Chairman Byrd: Any other comments on the plan?
Commissioner Cassel: Just to echo everyone’s thank yous for all the work and effort that
everyone has been doing. It must be terribly hard to sit out there and have us pick it apart.
Commissioner Schmidt: I know we all want to say thank you to the Working Group and the
Staff. They’ve put a tremendous amount of effort into it and I know everybody has learned a
lot and will continue to learn more as this goes on.
Chairman Byrd: I think Staff has heard our recommendations. I don’t think we need a
motion. I think we’ve got our opinions expressed on the plan as it is currently drafted.
Before we move on to the EIR I’d like to do now is to designate a Planning Commi. "ssioner to
represent us at the City Council hearing on July 26th. Given that Commissioner Burr was a
member of the Working Group for a time and has tracked thisabout as close as anyone,
unless there are objections, I’d like to ask that he represent us at that heating.
Commissioner Burr: I’d be glad to.
Chairman Byrd: Then moving on to other items. We have the Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. Staff correct me, but this is the same EIR that
was before us in March on which we commented in March.
Mr. Riel: That is correct.
Chairman Byrd: Then you have our comments from that time. We’ve been presented with
no new information on the environmental impacts. Although there was a mention in the
Staff report that the need for a statement of overriding considerations to address school over
crowding and park funding apparently no longer exist. Is that correct?
Mr. Riel: That’s correct.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 51
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
Chairman Byrd: So the original, many hours ago when you first presented this and said you
need a recommendation to Council from us to adopt a statement of overriding
considerations, we don’t need to address that any more. Is that correct?
Ms. Furth: You do not need to make a recommendation on the statement of overriding
considerations. That’s correct. -
Chairman Byrd: Okay. I think :it is a bit of a disappointment to the Commission that we
don’t have the final Environmental Impact Report in front of us. It is very hard to send
commentsto Council on a draft and given that almost three months have elapsed it would
have been better to see the final but evidently it is not available at this time.
Do any Commissioners have comments on the Draft EIR that were not expressed back in
March?
Commissioner Cassel: The school site issue is really difficult. K we consider it a major
impact we never bt~d anything because we would have children in the schools and there
would be an impact and we couldn’t allow them. On the other hand, we obviously are
recognizing the fact it is an impact to the schools and they don’t have an easy mechanism to
raise money in order to support them in the schools. We need the children, we can’t mm
children out of our City just because we are building housing. We need to recognize that we
are not being insensitive to the difficulties that the school system is facing.
Chairman Byrd: Any comments on the Draft EIR? Seeing none, then we will close that
item.
REPORTS FRoM OFFICIALS.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
We have no other Reports From Committees, or Officials on our agenda.
COMMISSION MEMBER Q UES TIONS, COMMENTS AND/OR
ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Commission Member Comments or Announcements. I would note in case anyone didn’t
catch it, at the Council meeting Monday night the Council did adopt the recommendation to
expand this Commission’s jurisdiction to include Transportation, to revise our name to
become the Planning and Transportation Commission. Ed, do you have any comment for us
about how that will be implemented and on what time line?
Mr. Gawf: I need to sit down with the Chief Transportation Official and outline the specific
things but in our mind we’ve already assumed that you are the Transportation Commission.
So I think in effect we’re doing that now. We’re bringing the shuttle recommendations to
you July 14th. So we’ll work out some other specifics and bring them back to the Planning
A:PC0526Minutes Page 52
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
and Transportation Commission and go over them with you. In effect we’ve already started
that transition or that change.
Chairman Byrd: Because the item was on consent calendar for Council it may be
appropriate to educate us and to educate the public about the change by putting out a press
release or doing something that acknowledges that this is a very significant shift in how the
City does business.
Mr. Gawf: We will do that. That’s a good suggestion. Tiiere was a very extensive
discussion by the City Council at their Policy and Services Committee.
Chairman Byrd: Which most people don’t see.
Mr. Gawf: And because the recommendation was unanimous it was then placed on the
consent calendar a-t the full City Council. That’s why it was that way. You’re right, I think
there are some things that we could do to publicize that a little bit more.
Commissioner Bialson: Was there some discussion at the sub-committee with regard to
what they saw as our role? Perhaps we would benefit ~om having a copy of those minutes.
Mr. Gawf: Very good suggestion. There was quite a bit of discussion and I will make sure
you get the minutes of that committee meeting.
Mr. Riel: From Staffs viewpoint we do need the Planning Commission to make a
recommendation regarding adequacy ofth~ Draft EIR. Basically number three on the Staff
report.
Ms. Furth: This is basically the same kind of direction we asked you for on the Draft EIR
on the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: You want us to move that the Draft EIR covers the
issues?
Ms. Furth: Covers the issues as required to adequately.
Commissioner Cassel: As noted in our Staff report?
Ms. Furth: That’s correct.
Commissioner Cassel: I so move.
SECOND: Commissioner Bialson: Second.
MOTION PASSED: Chairman Byrd: Any discussion? All those in favor? (ayes) All
those opposed? One abstention. I don’t feel comfortable commenting on its adequacy when
I haven’t seen the final.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This meeting is adjourned. Thanks.
MEETING ADJOURNED: 11:00 PM
NEXTMEET1NG: Meeting of July 14, 1999.
A:PC0526Minutes Page 54
ATTACHMENT C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
MEETINGS ARE ~BLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16
June 16, 1999
REGULAR MEETING- 8:00 AM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Review of draft SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. Review of the latest draft of the SOFA
Coordinated Area Plan prepared and distributed on behalf of the SOFA Working Group. The
Plan recommends that the Plan be implemented in two phases, the first phase consisting of
adoption of the policies and programs for the area and the residential land use designations
proposed. The second phase will consist of adoption of the Mixed Use land use designations,
following additional study. The Historic Resources Board’s comments on phase one will be
forwarded to the City Council in accordance with the provisions of the Coordinated Area Plan
Ordinance. The Historic Resources Board previously commented on the Plan at their regular
meeting held on February 3, 199-9.
BM Kohler: BM Bemstein, you have a conflict?
21
22
23
BM Bernstein: I will be stepping down from this item because I own property within 150 feet-
of this project. Thank you.
24
25
26
BM Kohle.r: So, this morning we are basically going to be looking at phase one which is the
blue line somewhat near Ramona and east. Is that correct?
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Mr. Eric .Riel, Chief Planning Official:
comments.
That is correct.I do have some introductory
BM Kohler: Okay, I’d like to introduce Staff. Eric Riel you are going to present the first
comments.
7 Mr. Riel: Thank you Mr. Chairman. What I’d like to do is just briefly describe what Staff
8 has been doing, and the Working Group, since the last time you saw this plan. Then we have
9 up on the screen a computer model simulation that a consultant and Phil Dascombe of Staff
10 will go through. In December 0~.1998 Staff completed the first draft of the SOFA
11 Coordinated Area Plan pursuant to the direction that we received from the Working Group.
12 We went to the HRB, the ARB, and the Planning Commission during the months of February
13 and March of this year. We secured a lot of comments. A lot of those comments were very
14 go6d. What we did then is prepare a second draft of the plan. If you recall, the December
15 draft had a couple of chapters missing, mainly the Implementation chapter, which dealt with
16 the funding issues on the policies and programs. So after Staff distributed the draft in May,
17 what we decided to do was go back to the Working Group two additional times to make sure
18 the document represented accurately what the Working Group’s final recommendations would
19 be. So as a result of that we had.a meeting on May .19 and May 26: some changes were made
20 to the text as well as the plan. And Staff drafted a third draft of the plan which you received
21 in your packet last week. As you mentioned, Chairman Kohler, several of the comments that
22 we received mainly dealt with the portion of the plan towards Alma Street, the MU-1 and MU-
City of Palo Alto Page 2
2, which is the generally pinkish portion on the plan. So what Staff decided to do, given the
fact that the major impetus for this plan was the Medical Foundation moving over to their new
facility and there were specific time frames that this plan was to be completed, was phase the
plan. Phase one is essentially those properties above the blue line on the plan. Phase two is
the mixed use portions or those portions towards Alma. The predominant portion of Phase
one is the Palo Alto Medical Fot!h_dation properties. That was most of the discussion in terms
of the Working Group on the May 19 and 26 meetings.
9 Some of the changes, I’ll just briefly outline those, are provided in more detail in the Staff
10 report which we prepared for you. Essentially the Working Group recommended relocation of
11 the park. Originally it was adjacent to the Roth building and its size was 1.6 acres. What the
12 Working Group recommended was the size be increased to 2.5 acres. They also recommended
13 that the existing Scott Park remain which would total approximately 2.9 acres of park land.
14 Obviously if the park moved towards Waverley that portion which was the park previously has
15 been designated as AMF which is. essentially multi-family zoning. They also eliminated, you
16 recall there was a street in between those properties which we referred to as the "Scott Street
17 extension" just for purposes of reference. One of their suggestions being that AMF is
18 proposed next to the Roth building, they did indicate that they felt that would be a good site
19 for the affordable housing. Affordable housing is allowed in the AMF as well as the Mixed
2o Use zoning districts. So if you recall, there was previously a site designated but to insure
21 flexibility that affordable housing could be accommodated on various portions of the plan their
22 preference was obviously for that particular block.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
Other changes from the previous draft were the conversion of Homer and Channing from one-
way to two-way. Staff had, base.d upon some of the comments we received from the Channing
House as well as Whole Foods, had suggested deferment of that conversion. The Working
Group originally recommended that be converted from one-way to two-way. The May draft
had it remaining as one-way and allowing further study. The Working Group was fairly
forthright in saying that they would like it to be converted to two-way with the understanding
that Staff would work with Whole Foods and Channing House to alleviate some of their
concerns regarding access to the property as well as unloading and loading. Essentially we are
going to work with them either way, but they wanted to put on record that the Working Group
was in support of the conversion from one-way to two-way.
What Staff intends to do is on July 26 this item is scheduled for City Council consideration.
There are going to be three products that are going to be provided. Obviously the Working
Group Plan of June 9th, this document that you received last week is a document that will be
forwarded to Council. Each of the Board’s and Commission’s comments, the ARB, HRB and
Planning Commission will be forwarded as the second product. The third product would be
Staff’s recommendation or changes to the plan or any other comments we have relative to the
Working Group’s Plan. Staff is still in the process of formulating that. Also we are still in
the process of negotiating with the PAMF the below market rate agreement or affordable
housing agreement. Those meetings will occur in the next week or two. That concludes my
comments. Staff recommends that the Commission comment and modify and appropriate any
portions of the text of the plan that they feel appropriate or provide us any suggestions or
Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 4
changes on the plan itself. Also, designate a person to represent the HRB at the July 26 City
Council meeting when this item will first be considered for consideration.
4 With that I am going to turn it over to Phil Dascombe. He is going to run through the
5 computer modeling. One of the suggestions that was made by the ARB was that they felt they
6 wanted to get a feel for what the impact of this plan would be. What we did is we got a
7 consultant to do some computer modeling for us. What you are going to see this morning is a
8 first step in that. This computer modeling is probably going to used more and be more
9 advantageous on the Phase Two. This is a first step where we have taken panoramic views of
10 the existing situation out there. Based upon previous proposals and obviously since we just
11 came out with the draft plan, the plan that we have before you on paper here, we didn’t have
12 an oppommity to do a computer model of it. What this is, is a computer model of some
13 scenarios from the May draft plan. What I wanted to say was that in Phase Two we are going
14 to go a step further and provide actual buildings in particular portions of Phase Two of the
15 plan with the existing fabric and give you an idea of what various FARs would look like. It is
16 a 3-D model. What you are going to see this morning is essentially a panoramic view. So it
17 is kind of a first step to introduce:this to you. This will be something that we are looking to
18 use in the Planning Division as a planning tool in the process rather than just a presentation
19 tool. So we will be using computer modeling throughout the process of Phase Two. Phase
2o Two will begin immediately after Phase One is completed which we expect to be in
21 September. We expect to have Phase Two completed in December of this year and be back to
22 the Boards and Commissions with Phase Two of the plan early next year for your comment
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1 and review.
2
3
4
5
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
One other thing I wanted to note. One of the suggestions that we are going to make is that
when a portion of the Working Group is reconvened to talk about Phase Two, we are going to
suggest that a member of the ARB, HRB and Planning Commission also participate in that
discussion so there is a good connection and there is a reporting back to the Board rather than
just coming to you and asking for your comments as the plan goes along. With that I am
going to turn it over to Phil Dascombe.
Mr. Phil Dascombe: Thanks Eric. First of all I think we have a little bit of a problem with
the lights. Can we turn the rest of the ceiling lights off?. That’s a little bit better. Those folks
in the audience, if you can’t see you might want to come a little closer.
First of all I’d like to introduce Greg Miller, he is the gentleman standing by the podium. He
is a partner with RDC Interactive who have helped us put together this simulation. They have
been real helpful andI’d just like to thank them for all their hard work.
18 Just to orient everyone before we get going. We have two scenarios of the land use plan to
19 show you. On the left hand side here you see a map which is of the easterly portion of the
20 SOFA area, this is Ramona Street. The line for the phasing of plan runs sort of where the red
21 dot is along that line. It incorporates all the AMF and the DHS designations. The park you
2:z see here is a 1.6 acre park. It ha.s the Scott Street extension. This is the plan that was
City of Palo Alto Page 6
10
11
12
13
14
15
prepared for the December distribution of the Coordinated Area Plan. So we did a little model
based on that plan and how that might look. We have things to show you for each of these
points that are shown with a red circle. We’ll run through those in a moment.
On the right hand side, the upper pane is the existing conditions. Each has on the bottom left
corner a description of where we are at so you can orient yourself. This is the comer of
Homer and Waverley Street. On the bottom pane will be how that might look, that same
view, if the draft plan was adopted based on these land uses.
With that, let’s go to the top pan.e..here. We are just slowly panning around. We are at the
corner of Homer of Waverley Street. We are now looking up Homer toward Middlefield
Road. This is St. Thomas Aquinas Church. Remember, this is all existing conditions. This is
Waverley Street here. A medical office here. This is Homer Avenue, and then we are
looking into the comer of the parking, that’s the Lee Building in the background with the
Medical Foundation’s parking facility in the foreground.
We come down to the way this might look under the draft plan. You’ll notice that a number
of these things are exactly the same. This building will remain, the zoning isn’t changing for
that structure. Again, this is Homer Avenue and the church being a landmark building is
remaining. Again, we have Waverley Street. As we pan around back toward PAMF’s
medical parking lot we’ll see a change here in that now you’ll see that there are houses here.
Remembering that this is as proposed then with DHS which is a single family and two family
kind of a designation. So this is how that comer might now look with those structures in
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1 place.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
We will now move to the next node which is number four here on the map. The location is
pretty much mid-block on Channing Avenue, between Bryant and Waverley Street, pretty
much standing at the mouth of S(ott Park. So now if we pan across you’ll see the entrance to
the Medical Foundation parking lot. The Lee Building is actually behind here although the
sun is blocking it out. As we pan around again we are going to look towards the corner of
Bryant and Channing Avenue. These are all Medical Foundation buildings. That is about as
far as we need to go on that one.
So then if you go down to the bottom view again, here is the park, Scott Park is behind us.
Now you see houses across the street. You see a street which would be Scott Street extension.
It is kind of the same view that Greg is showing you at the top here. Then if we pan around a
little bit further on the bottom view you can see there is actually a park. You’ll notice the trees
here are very immature. We actually took a portion of Johnson.Park and flopped it in that
corner.
One thing to note as an aside, one thing we have really noticed as part of this process is how
much existing mature tree cover there is in the South of Forest Area, which is a real plus. It
was actually kind of hard to see some of the properties because of that. So that is something
that is really of note.
City of Palo Alto Page 8 " ¯
2
3
10
11
12
So the next node we will go to is number seven. This is mid-block on Homer Avenue. You’ll
notice here we are looking straight at the Williams House which is currently used as the
heritage museum. We will go through the same routine. We’ll pan slowly to the left. This is
the Dunn Building. We are looking down Homer Avenue. The Roth Building is in the trees
obscured over there. As we move across, this is the comer of the Lee Building and again the
Medical Foundation parking lot. We can leave it there. Then going to how that might look
under the previous draft plan. Again we are moving away from the Williams House, the Dunn
Building, in this scenario we are going to leave that as remaining. Now you’ll notice that here
is no building here anymore. This is actually going to be a parking lot perhaps for the Roth
Building’s reuse. Here is the str.e.et that would be the new Scott Street extension with again,
single family houses toward the top of that block.
13 Finally, under this scenario we will go and take a look at the node down here at number nine.
14 This is at the comer of Ramona Street and Channing Avenue, we are looking towards
15 Downtown. At the top here this is the parking lot for the Medical Foundation right now. This
1~i is looking down Channing Avenue towards Alma Street and again, all the way around the
17 existing single family homes. As you pan across, these are Medical Foundation facilities as
18 well. On this comer here we have the existing research building for the Medical Foundation.
19 Under this scenario most of the existing land use will stay the same in Phase One. Again, we
20 are kind of looking southwards down Ramona Street. This is all likely to stay. Then as we
21 pan around what you’ll see on this comer here is multi-family housing. This is a three/three
22 and one-half story building built at the setback that would fit in generally with the AMF
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1 So this kind of give you an idea of how that
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
zoning designations and land use designations.
comer might look with a building in it.
Again, that was the plan that was proposed in December. As Eric mentioned, at the last
Working Group meeting a number of changes were made. What we’ll do is show you an
alternative plan that we prepared for that meeting. Just as an aside, this generally shows the
layout of what the final Working Group recommendation was. If you compared that with the
map that was shown before, it is very similar. The only difference is this park is actually only
two acres whereas the Working Group’s recommendation was for a 2.5 acre park. Generally
they are in the same location.
So we will quickly run through the same procedure. Again, we are back up here at Homer
and Waverley again, that same comer, the existing conditions up here. Here is Waverley
Street and the Medical Foundation. Then we will just pan slowly around again and look at the
Lee Building with the Medical Foundation’s parking lot in front. Then under the alternative
plan, which is essentially the Working Group’s final recommendation, these buildings will all
remain. Again this is Homer Avenue, Thomas Aquinas Church, and then what you’ll see as
we slowly pan around is now instead of single family homes on the main block, you’ll see
what a park might look like there. What we did is put Johnson Park which is about a two acre
park in that site. Obviously the Lee Building which was formerly in the back here is gone.
Actually a lot of these trees are existing street trees that will remain as you can see.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
2
3
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Then the next node, number four, which is the mid-block on Channing view point and pan
across to the main block to give you an idea. To refresh everyone’s memory, here is
Channing Avenue, the parking lotl the Medical Foundation, the Lee Building is pretty much
¯ behind those trees. This is the alternative. Up in the top part of the block you can see what a
two acre park might look like. As we pan around a little bit more, under this plan the corner
of Bryant and Channing Avenue will have multi-family houses. Here you can see what a three
to three and one-half story building built at the setback line might look like at that comer as
compared to the existing situation where the buildings are tucked a little bit more down Bryant
Street.¯ We won’t bother with node nine because that actually doesn’t change between one
version and the other.
Then finally to show you node number seven which is the mid-block on Homer.
again looking at the Williams House.
Building appearing behind the bushes.
Street.
again.
Here we are
If we pan to the left here you’ll again see the Dunn
Then Homer Avenue you’ll view down towards Alma
As we go across the street we’ve got the Lee Building and the PAMF parking lot
To show you what that might look like based on the land use that the Working Group
17 have chosen now is this view. The Williams House again, as we go past the hedge here
18 tucked in behind it you might be able to see a residential building.which is the AMF zoning
19 land use designation that it has been given. This again is another three story building that’s
20 been placed in there to give you an idea of how it might look. You’ll again notice the Lee
21 Building is gone and that this little section here is a parking lot with the Roth Building just up
22 the street. As we pan around you’ll see there is no longer any street here and that this is
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1 actually a park.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
So hopefully this gives you an idea of what it might look like should the land use designations
that have been proposed be adopted.
Mr. Riel: Just a couple of additional comments. Some of the changes that the Working Group
made, and if you’ll look on page four of your memo, the summary of your comments from last
meeting and the policies, items four and seven, those are the items that the Working Group
essentially made some changes to the plan. Those deal specifically with further clarification
on the Williams House open space. Then they had some discussion about the relocation of
historic structures as a preservation strategy. They wanted to ~llow relocation of structures.
Originally we had a policy in there allowing it only within a block or within the block they
were relocated from. They wanted additional flexibility to allow structures to be relocated
elsewhere. They also wanted to indicate that the AME Zion Church should be discouraged to
be relocated.
I also wanted to note that Larry Hassett is here from the Working Group as the Working
Group’s representative. He would be happy to answer any questions if you have anything on
any of the Working Group discussion.
With that, we will turn it back over to you, and we’ll be happy to answer any questions.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1 Why don’t we start at this end
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
BM Kohler: Are there any questions for Staff at the moment?
and work our way across, Millie?
BM .Mario: Was there any thought given to perhaps using some houses that would be
demolished and moving them onto the property where you would have single family housing?
We have had some demolition of houses that were not protected, they were historic but not
under the protection of the ordinance.
Mr. Riel: The Working Group really didn’t get into that type of detail but it would be allowed
so that’s not a problem if that situation occurs. They really didn’t get into that level of
specificity or detail regarding historic structures. Obviously when we went to them on the
19th and 26th we had a lot of items to go over and it was a very comprehensive discussion.
Mainly their discussion focused on historic preservation in terms of preservation of the AME
Zion Church and then allowing some relocation. That was generally their discussion on
historic items.
BM Kohler: Carol, do you have any?
19 BM Murden: I think my first question is something of a technical question perhaps.
20 Somebody in the Working Group called and said that they were concerned that we would be
:Zl reviewing these properties on Ramona that are west of Ramona. They had thought that was
22 not going to be included in Phase One. The 800 block I think, opposite the AME Zion
City of Palo Alto Page 13
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
church.
Mr. Riel: If you note the Phase One in the blue line which is on your plan does include that.
Staff has also been discussing, if you notice the blue line does go into the top portion of
Ramona, we’ve been discussing also including that in Phase One as well. That is the existing
French Laundry building and the AME Zion church. Staff will probably suggest that line be
moved down and that some appropriate zoning be put on so that can be included in Phase One
rather than Phase Two.
BM Murden: So we should be discussing those ones on the other side of Ramona too?
Mr. Riel: Correct.
BM Murden: What is the situation with the California Register properties in this zone?
They’ve been recognized as historic but they are not protected by the ordinance. I found the
plan very supportive of protecting historic properties. I just wondered what is the situation
there?
Mr. Riel: The plan defers to the-new historic preservation ordinance.
properties would not be protected.
Given that, California
BM Murden:Okay. Would there be any restriction on these or just mean having some
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1 historic value? Perhaps I’m putting you on the spot and I don’t mean to.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
Mr...Riel: No, it’s t-me. There is no additional protection provided in this plan as proposed.
can summarize it that way.
BM Murden: The plan allows for historic houses to be removed. The plan also says that
historic houses are not subject to the density requirements of say an AMF. If an historic house
is moved, that would still apply to the historic house? Even say if it was moved from single
family into an AMF area the historic house would still not be subject to the density
requirements?
Mr. Riel: If it has been designated an historic house my assumption would be that it would
not be subject to the minimum density requirements. The reason that was proposed is to not
encourage the demolition of historic structures.
BM Murden: Okay. There is a house, it is a Palo Alto Medical Foundation building and I’m
sorry I don’t know what it is being used for, it’s on the comer of Bryant and Homer. It was
originally an apartment building. This one here. It is potentially California Register eligible.
What is that considered now? Is that considered a commercial building?
Mr. Riel: I think you are talking about the Human Resources building.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
BM Murden: It could be, it’s next to the Psychology building.
Mr. Riel: Yes, that’s the Human Resources building of the PAMF facility.
Register.
It is California
BM Murden: It was built originally as an apartment building and I wondered what its
designation was sinceits use changed. I wondered what regulations would cover it.
Mr. Riel: What’s happened was when PAMFsigned the developers agreement with the City,
basically they relinquished any of their uses. So basically whatever is proposed on the plan
here is what will be the allowed uses. At which time they are changed and obviously I think
that facility will no longer be used as their Human Resources. I am assuming it was an
apar~ent building at one time. The proposal, and I can’t answer for PAMF, but obviously the
Victorian will remain but there has been some discussion about the removal of that particular
structure. I think there is a representative from PAMF here and perhaps he can shed some
more light. I don’t want to answer for them.
BM Murden: I wondered whether it originally had been apartment residential and is now
considered commercial, what its designation would be.
Also is there going to be any kind of discretionary design review for ~ingle family/two-family
houses? I know there are design guidelines.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1 Mr. Riel: Yes. There is going to be a review and the design standards and development
2 standards that were proposed, a lot of discussion at the Working Group meeting was to allow a
3 lot more flexibility. So if you recall looking at the design standards where we had previously
4 put "strongly recommended," or "recommended," the Working Group suggested that be
5 "strongly encouraged," and "encouraged." So it does allow flexibility but there will be
6 review.
8 BM Kohler: I think Dennis has a question for you.
9
10 BM Backlund: Yes. My question comes from a member of the Working Group who was
11 concerned about the effect of zoning on the historic houses in the area. In the sense that where
12 there is, for example, an AMF zoning and you have these Victorians or single family homes,
13 there was a concern about moving those maybe even out of the area under the statement in the
14 Comprehensive Plan that was put there to give the City flexibility that when it is the only way
15 to save a building that a structure could be moved. There was even a fear that, following that
16 guideline, if it were found that a building could not be moved but had to be moved for reasons
17 of development according to that Zoning that it could lead to demolition. That was the
18 concern. I don’t know what the City’s position is on that. Even St. Thomas Aquinas church "
19 was mentioned. There were comments that the Williams Garden should be zoned a public
2o facility. In short~ there was a fear that where zoning conflicted with what the existing
21 buildings were, it could have an adverse impact.
22
City of Palo Alto Page 17
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
Mr. Riel: On those two specific properties, the church and the Williams House, they are on
the Register. So obviously they are subject to the preservation ordinance. So the likelihood of
those being removed is none. On.the other properties basically the plan deferred to the
historic preservation ordinance. As I indicated in my presentation, we originally were only
going to allow historic structures to be relocated within a block or two of where they were
originally situated. Obviously if they are subject to the historic preservation ordinance. The
intent if for this plan not to circumvent or water-down any portion of the historic preservation
ordinance. It basically deferred any of that discussion because there was so much discussion
of that particular issue. So there aren’t really any additional protection measures that are not
provided beyond the historic preservation ordinance. In fact there is more flexibility put in
by a policy allowing the relocation of historic structures outside of the area. Obviously if it’s
a last resort or its purpose is to allow the congregatioia’ of other properties that would satisfy
another purpose. Like, for an examp!e, if there was an historic structure that was a California
Register eligible and that parcel was needed for perhaps affordable housing. Obviously to
relocate that and try to serve the purpose of providing affordable housing as well as save the
historic structure, Staff would try to do all we could in terms of preserving that structure as
well as providing affordable housing. So it is a balancing measure in terms of competing
interests but we would obviously try to achieve both of those.
BM Backlund.: I asked that so your comments could be part of the public record. Thank you.
BM Kohler:Anything else? Ol~ay. A couple of questions I had have already been asked,
City of Palo Alto Page 18
2
3
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
especially the part about design guidelines. Those are in place at some point.
If there are no other questions from Staff I will go ahead and open the public hearing. We
have a couple of cards from members of the public who would like to speak to us. The first
card I have is from Jim Newton.
Mr. Jim Newton, President,......D0.wntown North Neighborhood Association
216 Everett Avenue, Palo ,Alto: The proposal before you is not part of our neighborhood but
given the City’s predilection foiiSrecedent we are rather concerned that what happens south of
Forest will become precedent for future policies and actions and proposals north of Lytton.
There are two points I’d like to speak to, the first one is the park. Downtown North strongly
supports the 2.5 acre park, or larger. At our last general meeting we voted unanimously that
they should have the same park advantages that we have in Johnson Park. I’m quite sure that
the Comprehensive Plan guidelines would require considerably more than 2.5 acres, probably
four acres or more. It might well be appropriate to take that entire block and make the Roth
building a public facility as part of the park. Then you would have a park which would
probably meet the guidelines wi~ the Comp Plan.
20 The second point I’d like to speak to is the elimination of the Planned Community zones. I
21 supported this previously at the ARB and I note that it is still in this version of the plan,
22 although it is highlighted for future amendment. We strongly support this idea of eliminating
City of Palo Alto Page 19
2
3
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
Planned Community. zoning south of Forest. I think it is particularly important from an
historic preservation viewpoint. As you well know, Planned Community zones can arise
anywhere in the City. All you have to do is propose that the term Planned Community and
you open up the zoning to become a negotiated zone. It could over-ride any of the zones that
you are discussing now. Since tbey typically are used to expand on the permitted floor area
ratios by 90% or even more, these could surround your historic properties as 390 Lytton did,
the little red Victorian next door. In the Downtown North area there have 13 of these if we
assume all the ones that-are currently pending will be approved. You have recently addressed
the two parking lot structures and I believe you and the ARB very appropriately rejected those
proposals but they will keep coming back. That one will come back. There will be more.
They will appear south of Forest and they will appear north of Lytton. We continue to very
stronglyoppose the mis-use of the Planned Community process. Thank you.
BM Kohler: Thank you. The n~.ixt card I have is from Beth Bulmenberg.
16 Ms. Beth Bunnenberg, 2351 Ramona Street,..Palo. Alto: I’m speaking today as a private
17 individual. I wanted to share with the HRB some of my concerns particularly that have to do
18 with 351 Homer Street, the Museum of the American Heritage, at the Williams House. In
19 looking at the neighborhood property development toward Waverley Street there are one story
2o bungalows, and that seems to be a continuation. That seems like a very good continuation of
21 the setting and tone that has been there. I do have concerns about the attached multi-family
22 development in the Bryant Street direction from the Williams House. Now, certainly housing
City of Palo Alto ’.Page 20
2
3
4
10
11
is a major need in this commtmi~.. One scenario showed the Dunn building still there and
another showed possible 45 foot height multi-family buildings there. I also think that I read
that you can put a balcony out on those multi-family units, up to a six foot balcony. I would
suggest to you that having a balcony towards the Williams House would certainly give people
more outdoor living space but you’d assume that those balconies would be used for sitting, or
bar-b-quing, or playing music, or any of the kinds of things that people do on balconies, and
yet I have questions about what that would do to the tone and the setting of the Williams
House. Certainly that property right now is a little island of calm and serenity which is very
much needed when you have a busy Downtown section nearby. So I would encourage you to
see if there is any chance for some design review that would look at that sort of thing.
12 Secondly, in the open space section it talked about considering the Williams House garden as
13 part of that open space. As a frequent docent there at the Williams House I would say that it
14 really is important to have those gardens just open when docents are present to interpret and
15 educate the public about them. Those post-Victorian garden rooms are really not suitable for
16 active children’s play. At the museum we love to have the public. We want everybody to
17 come in but it is important for people to know how to use and how to enjoy that garden. The
18 Williams House certainly wants to make their entry welcoming. It’s been kind of an
19 interesting process to go through what City signage will allow, what can be allowed with
2o historic preservation regarding tlie products that are there. I had wondered, just as an.
21 individual, is it ever possible for the museum to come in and just consult with you in terms of
22 some brainstorming of what might be possible. Sometimes it. is a hard thing to negotiate
City of Palo Alto Page 21
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
through all the jurisdictions here. Also to say that certainly the museum is working very hard
to provide programs for adults and children and the entire community and we very much want
to be a welcoming kind of place. So anything that you can do to support this would be much
appreciated. Thank you.
BM Kohler: Thank you very much. The next card I have is from Earl Schmidt.
Mr. Earl Schmidt, 201 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto: I came prepared to listen rather than to
speak but I especially appreciate Mr. Backlund’s questions to get some things on the record
and figured I’d better join in.
We have a very real interest because we own properties, three of them, at the corners of
Homer and Emerson across from and surrounding Whole Foods. I express concern very
definitely on the fact that, listening to the conversation today the total effort is on
accommodating the Palo Alto Clinic, a commercial venture. All of the effort in dividing this
plan is to accommodate the Pal0-Alto Clinic. In the discussion today it appeared evident that
people would move even a couple of buildings closer to our property in considering the Clinic.
One of our properties backs up to the Clinic building that they purchased and used for some
kind of laboratory purpose. They succeeded in killing the trees on it. in order to expedite their
move and dropping stuff all over our parking area for our tenants. The Clinic is a very large
21 gorilla.
22 doctors.
City of Palo Alto
I say this publicly. The Clinic originally was a cooperative venture of a group of
They were bought out using City bonds, funded by the City, in the interest of the
Page 22
1 Clinic. Now if you are going to look at the south of Forest area, you cannot keep sawing this
2 into littler and littler pieces as you move into other reasons to accommodate the Palo Alto
3 Clinic. Our property has been waved back and forth. One of them, at the time we moved into
4 it, had a 10-year moratorium to be destroyed. This is the home we live in at 201 Homer
5 Avenue. Along with the moratorium was a building the City now considers one of the most
6 historic, the small cottage at 209 Homer, which was originally the rectory for the Episcopal
7 church. You talk about moving to close, adjacent properties it was moved from the present
8 site of the Episcopal church up to the location on Homer Avenue, I assume on logs or
9 telephone poles in order to get it there. Moving wasn’t a problem in those days and certainly
10 isn’t today. We are saddled with every type of City regulation. We are [rip-sawed] from
11 meetings last night to a meeting this morning in order to look after, hopefully, our interests in
12 preserving our property and our fight to enjoy it fully. We have preserved and protected our
13 property without any City help for all of these years. At this point, as we’re getting fairly
14 well long in the tooth and not looking forward to certainly many, many more years, we’re
15 looking at how do we preserve the investment in our property. I say this very, very really.
16 This comes down to an absurdity of being back and forth with two disassociated City
17 Commissions planning what is going to happen to us and to our properties. It is about like
18 going out and playing football with two first teams that you are playing against and they rotate
19 one and another within the same half and with the same offense. We’re dealing with two
20 offense teams at this point. As you plan for the SOFA area you cannot break it into two
21 sections. As you plan for the SQFA area you must look at all of it. I find that I’ve been
22 dealing with ordy one-half of the City’s planning staff. We’re going to have to spend more
City of Palo Alto .Page 23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
time with Mr. Dolan and his team in order to look after our interests. I appeal to you, look
after the people that own property that have maintained property that the City now can wave a
wand and say we’ re going to preserve it, and you are going to do everything to preserve it
with no incentive. We sat here last night and I think gained some points in relaxing some of
the restrictions on historic properties. At the moment there are no advantages to historic
properties. Mrs. Mario could refuse that because she has enjoyed the one thing that could be
offered to a private property owner. But everything is done here to restrict the individual
property owner, not to-encouragetheir protection and preservation. If you look at our
properties we’ve maintained them. We have painters working there now. We try to protect
them. We try to improve them. And yet all we hear is how can we hold you and we have a
whole pack of people that come from everywhere else in Palo Alto who sit over here in
hearings and proceed to tell us, "you have to do this with your property." This hearing is
great but you cannot divide SOFA and look at this segment of it for the benefit of a
commercial organization. The Palo Alto Clinic which is no longer a closely held parmership.
It is now a commercial organization. You cannot sit here and say, we are going to do all of
this, in hopes that we’re not going to tread on the toes of the big gorilla and ignore everyone
else in the community. Pardon._m.’.e for waxing poetic on it but this what it boils down to.
Thank you.
BM Kohler: Thank you Mr. Schmidt. We have a card from Tom Shannon.
Mr. Tom Shannon, 256 Kellogg Avenue, Palo Alto:
City of Palo Alto
We are property consultants working
Page 24
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
with the Medical Foundation. I have two comments or clarifications. First off, Mr. Schmidt,
I’d like to get in touch with you because actually the trees he alluded to belong to the neighbor
working with the City Arborist. Those are what they call "Trees of Heaven." The City
Arborist and that neighbor got together and wanted to have those taken down. So let me
coordinate with him and get that issue Cleared up. Certainly the Medical Foundation wants to
be a good neighbor and I wasn’t, aware that it was impacting his property.
The second clarification is that I was intrigued by Board Member Mario’s idea and I don’t
think that has been explored at length. What I at least heard you suggest is the possibility of
whether we can move existing historic structures into the SOFA district because the Medical
Foundation does in fact have some empty single family lots. Per the plan right now those
single-family lots are going to be designated multiple-family lots. So I thought I would like to
hear a little bit more clarification’on that because if, in fact, especially in the Bryant corridor
where we have four houses that are potentially historic and there are some empty lots in
between, if those could be available to move historic structures on, that’s something that really
hasn’t been researched. I thought it was a very good point. I wasn’t sure where the
clarification was coming from, if we had the opportunity to move an historic house onto one of
those lots would it have to comply with the underlying AMF zoning once the plan is
approved?
BM Kohler: Thank you. I have no other cards. Is there anybody else here who would like to
speak to this item? Okay, I’ll c!o.se the public hearing and bring it back to the Board for
City of Palo Alto Page 25
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
discussion.
taken.
Staff, you-are looking for comments only.There is no real official action to be
Mr. Riel.: Any comments or suggestions that you wan~ to make to the text. Any additions,
policies, programs or changes to the plan. Whatever you feel is appropriate.
BM Kohler: The memorandum that you started to talk about from June 16, page four which
talks about the historic resources, this list is basically clarifying what is in the little booklet
that we have here.
Mr. Riel: That’s correct. It is a highlight and a summary of each of the policies.
BM Kohler: So all of these items that are on this list are in the booklet, correct?
Mr,. Riel: Yes, that’s correct.
BM Kohler: Board Members, how do you want to proceed with this?
and let you speak?
Just start at one end
BM Mario: I have a question about the parcel that is across from Whole Foods that is
designated as attached multiple family. That is not something that was owned by the Medical
Foundation.
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1 Mr. Riel: That’s correct. That is Mr. Schmidt’s property.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
BM Mario: Why was that re-zoned at this particular time? Just that little piece there.
Mr. Rie.!: That is part of Phase Two which will be under further study after completion of
Phase One. There has been some discussion about leaving that as existing zoning which I
believe is RM-15. The reason it was put into the AMF category is because it was felt that it
would best fit into that category and not be increasing the non-conformity of it. Staff is
probably going to propose that it remain as RM-15 and therefore there would not be a re-
zoning of that property. Again, that is a part of Phase Two. So that will be a part of the
discussion and a policy issue on Phase Two.
BM Mario: Well my question came up because the person who owns these properties is here
in the audience. That’s why I really thought it should be clarified.
BM Kohler: So that will be a Phase Two discussion.
18 Mr. Riel: That’s correct.
19
:z0 BM Mario: And the other question was why, again, where these smaller houses are, why was
21 that not designated DHS instead of AMF on Ramona? It just seems that if we’re trying to
22 preserve some of these existing properties, to designate this as attached multiple family is
City of Palo Alto Page 27
1 going to encourage people to de .molish these properties.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Mr. Riel: One of the reasons that was done, I don’t know if you recall from my previous
presentation when we were before you in February and March, the intent of the plan is once
you go from Kipling, Waverley, Scott, Bryant and Ramona is intensity level in terms of
residential units and intensity increases as you go towards Alma Street in kind of like a wave
pattern. So that is one of the reasons why the Working Group felt that the DHS which is
basically single family, the yellow portions on the plan, are towards Waverley and Bryant
Street. As you get further towards Alma, AMF and then MU-1 and MU-2. In other words,
allowing the increase in density was a good thing. Also, if you notice, one of the policies
requires a delivery of 300-plus urdts. To achieve that obviously there needs to be allowance of
density up to 30, 40 or 50 units per acre. That was one of the issues that was discussed at
length in the beginning of the plan. Staff was trying to get as many units as possible. There
have been some discussion of in excess of 400 units but the Worldng Group felt that, and they
provided a policy indicating that, 300-plus units was appropriate. It ends up being, if you look
at the split of Phase One versus Phase Two, there is an estimation of about 140 units in Phase
One, and 150-160 units in Phase Two. That is at build-out.
19 Mr. Dascombe: I’d just like to add to what Eric said. I think you are talking about the
20 properties that are on the west side of Ramona Street. One thing to add is that the AMF
21 regulations only allow up to two units on lots less than 6,000 square feet. Although I don’t
22 know exactly how many square feet they are those look like they may be in that range. I’d
City of Palo Alto Page 28
2
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
also emphasis that historic properties are exempt from the density requirements in any case.
At least two of those are designated on the Resource List. So maybe some of those will be
affected by the minimum density but others may be exempt.
BM Kohler: Carol, do you want to come forth with anything?
BM Murden: I think the HRB si~0uld strongly recommend or support the discretionary design
review of the single family/two family houses. I also agree with one of the speakers, Beth
Bunnenberg, that the wording referring to the Williams Garden should be changed. I know
it’s been changed once but I think there is still an expectation in the references to the use of
the Williams Garden. It does say that use of the Garden would be in line with preservation
and with the Williams House management, but I do think that there is still an expectation there
that it would be very open to the public and used in a different way than would be really
appropriate for a garden to be an historic garden. So I would like to see that wording made
more restrictive.
I also have some concern about buildings that are on Homer that are potentially California
Register eligible. There is another building on the corner of Waverley and Homer -- I don’t
think the Medical Foundation owns it, I believe they lease it. The building was originally one
of the series of still intact bungalows in the 700 block of Waverley. The building has been
altered enough to no longer be historic, nevertheless about a third of the original bungalow’s
exterior appears to be intact. It would be appropriate to return the building to its original
City of Pa!o Alto Page 29
10
11
12
13
14
configuration as part of the series of bungalows. I have some concern about that and also
about the building on the corner of Bryant and Homer, across the street from the Roth building
which is potentially California .R._egister eligible but again would not have any kind of
protection under the historic ordinance.
I would agree with the speaker that i~ would be good to have no PC in here. I think that you
do get really large buildings sometimes with a P.C. which perhaps isn’t appropriate with the
historic character of the area.
There is a big jump, it seems to me, between the single family housing, the DHS designation,
and the AMF designation. A big jump in density which around some of the historic buildings
could perhaps cause a problem..!t would be nice to have, just in my opinion, something that
was sort of in between. Maybe the RM-30. That would be another concern.
IS I also agree with the speaker and Millie, on Bryant between Homer and Channing, where you
16 have four houses that are eligible for the National Register. It seems sensible to me to leave
17 them there.and in-fill. There is a parking lot and I think two other buildings and another
18 parking lot. But if they have to be moved I think they should be moved within the SOFA area
19 plan. These four buildings are all potentially eligible for the National Register. The National
2o Register, in Bulletin 15 does say that houses that have been moved can be put on the National
21 Register. But it does stipulate that the setting of the houses has to remain the same. I think
22 that is going to be very difficult-~0 do if you leave the SOFA area. I don’t think you are going
City of Palo Alto Page 30
1
10
11
12
13
14
to get that same setback, maybe in Downtown North but I don’t think there are any vacant lots
in Downtown North. So I think if they are moved out of the area they probably would lose
their National Register eligibility. It just seems to me that they should be left within the pl.an
area.
BM Kohler: Dennis, are you ready?
BM Backlund: First of all I wanted to clarify the recommendation on the PCS to see if the
Board might be movingtoward a unanimous position on that. Are we talking today about just
the area that is east of Ramona in recommending the PC policy? Or is this recommendation
sort of looking forward toward the next phase and recommending it for the whole of SOFA?
BM Kohler: Today we are only supposed to be talking about Phase One.
15 BM Backlund: Okay. Also, before I mention what I think are the historic issues for me, I
16 think Mr. Schmidt would probably agree that if one distills down a lot of the comment that we
17 have heard in the last couple of weeks regarding regula.tions that would control the historic
18 environment of this area, one might distill it down to "in planning beware the administration
19 of things at the disregard of lives that are in the area that is being regulated." Certainly in
2o SOFA there are a good many people living there who are going to remain there. So I would
21 encourage the Planning Department, I don’t know whether it would be possible, to maybe
22 even create a special f’fie that would contain comments and concerns that would be coming in
City of Palo Alto Page 31
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
all the time from the public who lives there of what maybe feared impacts would be, or
questions. So as this area is developed there would be a knowledge at all times of what the
concerns are of the people who live there.
That said, for our work today in the historic, would we agree that the two basic concerns that
we face are preservation of existing resources and the compatibility of new structures and the
impact of those on what is historic. I think the first one, preservation, has been pretty well
addressed today. On the second one, compatibility, that will have a lot to do with what the
Planning Commission and the ARB will be talking about. So I guess we should make a
statement of recommendation on that. As I look at the most historic blocks in the area, such
as across the street from the Clinic on Bryant and going around the corner on Homer toward
Whole Foods Market and the stretch of Waverley that is right across the street from the Palo
Alto Clinic’s current parking lot, as I walk through those areas the dominant atmosphere that
is established I think is exactly w.hat Beth Bunnenberg said that it is. That is an atmosphere of
calm and serenity that one experiences in almost all historic neighborhoods. If one wants to
feel very strongly what that means one can go down to the intersection of Bryant and Addison
at the beginning of Professorville. Walking down there from the Downtown one is suddenly
seized with this feeling of calm, serene, lost-in-time sort of character that it has. I would like "
to recommend that as new buildings, multi-family housing, some of which could be quite
large, when the other Boards and Commissions consider those structures that it will be with an
eye to that kind of character being preserved. I think that would be very suitable for an area
full of residential.
City of Palo Alto
Then as we move into the next phase we can see what to do with that. But
..Page 32
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
on this one that is the atmosphere"that I would like to recommend being preserved in new
structures. Those are my comments right now. Thank you.
BM Kohler: Thank you. I tend to agree with just about everything that my fellow Board
Members have said. I just have few little comments. When we first looked at this project last
year one of the discussion that we had was that if you look at the Sanborn Map showing all the
homes that were in this site prior to the Medical Foundation taking them out that this whole
neighborhood was just a continuation of Professorville and the houses that are just south of
this district. I thought it would be nice, since we have such great computer capability, to
superimpose the old Sanborn Ma~ on this district. One of the discussions we’ve had recently
was talking about context of structures and projects within the neighborhood context and, in
our case, historic context. I happen not to totally agree with the concept that any time there is
land available we fill it up with houses. I, as a long-time resident here, and having trouble
driving around town I disagree with that. The more houses we put, to me, equates to more
traffic. Also as an historic Board Member here I think the pressures of high-density housing
has an impact on the surrounding historic homes. I think that is probably a negative. Now,
I’m not saying it can’t happen, I’m just saying it has to be done very carefully. I think with
the design review and the controls that we have, I guess at some point I wouldn’t mind seeing°
the old Sanborn Map superimposed on this. There were probably 40 or 50 homes that were
lost in this process.
I think the park is certainly a major benefit to this neighborhood as well as the whole northern
City of Palo Alto Page 33
2
3
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
part of town. They really have.nowhere to go. I guess the closest park is either Johnson Park
or Rinconada Park or that little park up on Channing which is quite a ways. So I think I
would support the previous Board Member’s comments, and I think the overall feeling I get
from the comments is that although we are supportive of the plan, we are cautious of what it is
going to do to the historic ambiance of this neighborhood. The hope would be that it would
reinforce what was there at onetime. The end result would be a reclamation, or a going back
in time in a sense, giving us back the neighborhood that is now basically parking lots at the
moment.
So with that in summary, I personally feel that a lot of work has been done. There has been a
lot of input from the neighbors. So I think that has been a great process. But from an
Historic Board position, at one point there was some discussion of some perimeter housing
designed more to kind of reflect the neighboring community like in the Waverley and Kipling
area and then within the sites those houses would build up. That is probably still the goal but
maybe that needs to be described.in some other way.
I don’t know what else the Board here wants to say or do this morning. I guess you are going
to take these comments as a group. Do you want us to summarize them?
Mr. Riel: I took pretty good notes of each of your comments. What we will do is we will
summarize them and actually Council will get a verbatim transcript Of the minutes.
City of Palo Alto Page 34
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
Let me comment on some of your concerns regarding the design regulations. If you look at
them, most of the regulations talk.about the existing fabric. There is always a reference back
to preserving the existing fabric. So that was something that Staff paid particular attention to
and I think there are enough protective measures and guidelines in there to provide that. As
well as the review that is required will allow that Opportunity to create a design that is in
keeping with the existing fabric of the area. That was one of the 13 things of the policy
framework that is mentioned in about two or three of them. One of which being historic
preservation.
BM Kohler: It would be helpful possibly to put the overlay of the old Sanborn Map on this.
think that would be a major help in everyone understanding what the original fabric of that
community was. Right now it is a big parking lot.
Mr. Riel: That is a very good suggestion. Staff will do that.
BM Murden: Reading the draft plan that we got, what came through to me very strongly was
that both the Working Group and the Staff very much wanted to preserve the historic character
of the area. My concern is that in the implementation this be done.
There is a concern the high density housing of AMF zoning will adversely impact the historic
structures in the SOFA area. T0.1prevent this, discretionary design review which takes into
account the historic character of the SOFA area is essential. Perhaps we have already said
City of Palo Alto Page 35
11
12
13
18
19
BM Kohler: I think you’ve said it fairly well there. We will forward a copy of that to the
Staff.
Mr. Riel: Thank you. The only other thing we need you to do is designate a person to
represent the HRB at the Council Meeting in July.
BM Kohler: Maybe we should say Susan, she’s not here. When is that meeting?
Mr. Riel: It is July 26. You don’t have to decide this morning if you want to check your
calendars and just report back.
BM K0hler: It probably should be one of us that are here.
next meeting and get a representative for that. Is that it?
Alright, we will discuss that at our
Mr..Riel: Yes, thank you very-much for your time.
BM Kohler: Thank you for bringing the presentation. The computer graphics are pretty
clever. I hope the public continues to participate in this, especially those that live in the
neighborhood.
City of Palo Alto Page 36
ATTACHMENT D
-MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL
Thursday, June 24, 1999
SPECIAL MEETING - 8:00 AM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ROLL CALL:
Board members:
Robert Peterson, Chair, absent
Francisco Alfonso, Vice-Chail;
Cheryl Piha, arrived at 8:50am
Lee I. Lippert
Joseph Bellomo,
Liaison:
Amy French, Planner
Staff."
Lilie Lopez, Office Specialist
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official
Philip Dascombe, Planner
Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows:
¯Announce agenda item
¯Openpublic hearing
¯Staff recommendation
¯Applicantpresentation - Ten(lO) minutes limitation or at the discretion "of the Board.
¯Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff
¯Public comment - Five(5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three(3) minutes
depending on large number of speakers per item.
¯Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes
¯Close public hearing
¯Motions/recommendations by the Board
¯Final vote
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. None.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. None.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
CONSENT CALENDAR. None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings (Minor).
1. SOFA Coordinated Area Plan: Review of the latest draft of the SOFA Coordinated Area-
Plan prepared and distributed on behalf of the SOFA Working Group. The Plan recommends
that the Plan be implemented in two phases, the first phase consisting of adoption of the
policies and programs for the area and the residential land use designations proposed. The
second phase will consist of adoption of the Mixed Use land use designations, following
additional study. The Architectural Review Board’s comments on phase one will be
forwarded to the City Council in accordance with the provisions of the Coordinated Area Plan
Ordinance. The Architectural Review Board previously commented and continued review of
this Plan from a special meeting held on March 10,1999.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) complete
the following:
1)Review the final recommendations of the Working Group SOFA Coordinated Area Plan and
Plan Concept and provide comments, recommendations or modifications. These comments will
be forwarded to the City Council for further action and deliberation; and,
2)Designated an ARB representative to represent the ARB recommendations at the July 26, 1999
City Council meeting.
Public Testimony:
1) Lynn Hollyn, 522 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, CA: Presented concepts for redevelopment of
PAMF site.
2)Hannah, Clayborn, Museum of American Heritage, 315 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA:
Expressed her support for the project, including the location of the new park and shared parking
for the museum.
Architectural Revie~v Board Action: The Board selected Board member Francisco Alfonso as
Architectural Review Board (ARB) representative for the July 26, 1999 City Council Meeting to
forward comments made by the ARB members.
Public Hearings (Major). None.
Other Items. None.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings (Major).
2.800 High Street [97-ARB-122; 97-ZC-.9; 98-EIA-17]: Review of an application for a Zone
Change from the Downtown Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S) (P) District
to the Planned Community (PC) Zone, to allow the demolition of an existing 17,632 square
foot manufacturing building and construction of a new 48 foot high, three story mixed use
building including 26 residential units, 48,030 square feet of office space, 2,379 square feet
of retail space, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements; and a height
City of Palo Alto Page 2
variance for a portion of the third floor residential area that exceeds the City’s height
requirement. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report has been
prepared.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board:
1)Review the Draft Environmental Impact Report; and
2)Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project, subject to potential redesign of
the perceived bulk of the plaza atrium as well as the vertical elements and mass along High
Street, for construction of a three story, 48 foot maximum height mixed use building including
26 residential units (27,375 square feet), 48,030 square feet of office space, 2,379 square feet of
retail space, a two level subterranean parking garage and related site improvements; and a
variance for a portion of the third floor residential area that exceeds the City’s maximum height
requirement, based on the attached findings and conditions.
Public Testimony:
1) Elaine Meyer, University South Neighborhoods Group (USNG), 609 Kingsley Avenue, Palo
Alto, CA: Expressed her appreciation for Roxy Rapp’s involvement with the ~oup regarding
the project. However, the USNG still has concerns with the size, design, and public benefit.
Would like the project to be proponed until the CAP (Coordinated Area Plan) is completed. Has
concerns with lack of street level parking and elimination of street parking spaces.
2)Larry Hassett, 875 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA, owner of Palo Alto Hardware: Noted that
the project uses are not compatible with his business directly behind the proposed project.
Stating that his business involves night time deliveries that represent a high noise nuisance for
residential tenants. Feels that this project may cause severe limitations on the ability to conduct
his business. Also, has concerns with parking in that street parking spaces will be eliminated and
the proposed gated parking facility may result in street parking in violation of time limits.
3)Steven Player, 2600 El Camino Real # 410, Palo Alto, CA: On behalf of the owners of
Peninsula Creamery, expressed the support of the project and asked that the board recommend
approval of the application.
Architectural Review Board Action: The Board recommends approval of the application including
the DEIR and PC, with conditions 1-79, with condition # 79 to return to the board on Consent
Calendar, (4-0-0-1) Board Member Peterson, absent due to conflict of interest.
Condition # 79
The applicant shall return to the Board on Consent Calendar to address the following:
a) Restudy design of the Public Plaza area, including hardscape, landscape, canopy, and lighting;
b) public art program and plans for what will be displayed consistent with architecture;
c) landscape and lighting improvements at entries along Channing and Homer, and at the corner
of Channing and High incorporating vine work and lighting;
d) restudy of what can occur in the alley consistent with the building mass;
e) complete materials board and color palette;
f) restudy of parking.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Otlzer Items. None.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Architectural Review Board representative at City Council meetings:
Proiect Meeting date Representative
Sofa Coordinated Area Plan July 26, 1999 Francisco Alfonso
¯ Next Regular Meeting: Thursday, July 1, 1999.
ADJOURNMENT. 12:00
City of Palo Alto Page 4
ATTACHMENT E
Staff Recommended
SOFA Coordinated Area Plan
[Dated December 1, 1999]
This document is attached to the rear of this report and includes
policies, programs and exhibits relating to the SOFA area.
If this Plan has become detached or you require additional copies, please
contact the Planning Division at (650) 329-2441 between 8:00 am and 5:00
pm, Monday through Friday.
ATTACHMENT F
PAMF/SOFA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
POLICY FRAMEWORK
ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 22, 1997
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR PLAN
Desi~ma Character, Scale and Compatibility
Promote high quality design and construction that preserves and continues the existing
character of the area, including the scale of development, the high degree of visual
interest, and the variety of compatible land uses within a historic pattern. Facilitate
implementation of the Plan by providing development standards and design guidelines to
help ensure the compatibility of uses, to reduce potential conflicts and to provide for
compatibility in character, scale and massing.
Mixed Use Character and Compatibili _W
Preserve and enhance the historically mixed-use character of the area. Identify
appropriate and mutually compatible uses that provide vitality and convenience for
residents, businesses and visitors.
Economic Feasibili _ty
The Plan must be economically feasible and desirable in order to facilitate sale and
redevelopment of Palo Alto Medical Foundation properties. Avoid potential negative
impacts of vacant and underutilized facilities. Any City participation in project is subject
to Council direction and competition from other City projects for City resources.
Walkable Neighborhood
Reinforcement of the neighborhood as a walkable area providing convenient access to
services and facilities.
Reduce Traffic Impacts
Evaluate re-establishing Homer Avenue and Channing Avenue as two-way streets in
order to reduce the speed and impact of traffic through this residential and mixed use
neighborhood. Consider opportunities for establishment of new alleys and use of existing
alleys consistent with the historic development pattern of the area. The replacement of a
two-way couplet with two way streets may be more appropriate to the predominantly
residential character envisaged for future use and integration of the PAMF sites with the
adjacent neighborhoods.
S:~PLANkPLADIV~CMR~PSOB JEC
Transit and Bicycle Accessibili _ty
Take advantage of existing transit connections at the University Avenue multi-modal
transit facility and access to local and regional destinations. Identify opportunities for
improving existing service or adding new transit service. Coordinate with other studies
on transit services. Promote increased bicycle use by commuters, residents, visitors and
customers by reinforcing existing bicycle routes and providing safe and convenient
bicycle parking and storage related facilities.
Housing
Provide a significant quantity of new housing, with residential use as the predominant
land use for the former PAMF sites. Allow for the possibility of live-work and other
residential uses within the mixed use areas along Emerson, High and Alma Streets.
Considering the uniqueassets of this area, its proximity to jobs and services and citywide
and regional housing needs, allow a variety of housing types especially affordable
housing.
Historic Preservation
Identify historically significant and contributing structures in the South of Forest Area
and encourage the preservation and viable continued uses of landmark structures.
Evaluate preservation and continued use of contributing structures that compose the
heritage of the South of Forest Area. Recognize that in order to achieve other plan
objectives, not all historical structures may be able to be preserved, and examine
alternatives including preservation, alteration, demolition and relocation.
Relationship to Downtown Commercial District
Clarify the relationship between SOFA commercial and mixed use area and downtown.
Reinforce the potential for complementary uses in the area that support the vitality of
downtown uses serving the city and region. Plan for convenient neighborhood and local
commercial uses and services, including automobile repair, hardware and sundries.
Automobile Service and Other Service Uses
Examine the special requirements of automobile service, convenience service and retail
business requiring automobile access and parking, to determine measures to preserve the
economic viability of these businesses while reducing impacts on adjacent uses.
Heritage Trees. Street Trees and Landscaping
Reinforce the overall pattern of significant street trees, and preserve heritage oaks and
other large trees wherever possible as an important asset for future development and the
neighborhood. Reinforce and continue other landscaping and planting patterns.
S :kPLAN~LADIV~CMR~PSOB JEC
Bicycle and Pedestrian Access across Caltrain Tracks
Conduct feasibility study to thoroughly explore all possible means (over, under and
across) for construction of a pedestrian and bicycle crossing of the Caltrain tracks to
provide pedestrian and bicycle access from the downtown and South of Forest Areas to
the Urban Lane area.
Community Facilities
Pursue opportunities for public facilities in the area including but not limited to open
space, parks, plazas, child care, art, library and other such facilities.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE PLANNING PROCESS:
Working Group Role
The role of the Working Group will be to advise the City Council, Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Board (ARB), Historic Resources Board (HRB), Public Arts
Commission (PAC), consultants and City staff on the issues, alternatives and substance of
the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. The Council retains the ultimate decision
making responsibility for policy direction, plan content and Plan adoption. The Working
Group will meet approximately monthly to provide input, review and recommendations to
the staff and consultants. Neither consensus nor voting is required of the Working Group.
The Working Group will not have subcommittees but small task forces may be
constituted for maximum 1 to 2 month periods to address specific issues in more depth.
Product of Planning Process
The Plan and associated documents will be prepared by City staff and consultants under
the direction of the Chief Planning Official. The Plan shall be prepared in conformance
with the Coordinated Area Plan Ordinance and particularly Section 19.10.040, Contents
of Coordinated Area Plans. The Plan process will culminate in the preparation of the
Coordinated Area Plan for the PAMF/SOFA area that shall include:
Land Uses: A map designating all land uses consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and zoning or a recommendation for changes. The Plan shall describe all
permitted and conditionally permitted uses and, for housing, minimum and
maximum densities.
Parcels: A map showing parcel and lot configurations, including but not limited to
size, orientation, easements and rights-of-way.
Infrastructure: Identification of public and private transportation, parks, open
space, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, sidewalks, plazas,
S:~PLANkPLADIV\CMR~PSOBJEC
street trees, landscaping, art and other public improvements existing and proposed
for the area.
Site Design: A plan showing specific site design objectives, primarily for PAMF-
owned parcels, including but not limited to building placement, orientation,
maximum building footprints, setbacks, mass, height, daylight plane, floor area, lot
coverage, open space and parking.
Design Guidelines: Architectural design guidelines that address each land use type,
street, park or public facility. Suggested typical or prototype elevations, facades,
roof types and materials are to be included.
Feasibility: A determination of the economic and fiscal feasibility of the plan with
specific.analysis of market place factors and incentives and disincentives, as well
as a cost-benefit analysis of public infrastructure investments and projected
economic benefits to the City and community.
Environmental: An Environmental Impact Report consistent with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act including alternatives to the Plan.
Implementation: A program of implementation measures to be coordinated with
the City’s Capital Improvement Program and including development regulations,
public works projects, application processing, infrastructure improvements and
financing.
Timeline for Plan Preparation
The goal for preparation of the Plan is to be available for public review by the various
City approving bodies by September 1, 1998 with an anticipated approval date no later
that October 31, 1998. Planning Commission and City Council review and policy
recommendations of Plan alternatives shall occur approximately half way through the
process.
Process for Approvals Upon Plan Adoption
Upon plan adoption, development proposals in conformance to the Plan may be processed
as minor Architectural Review Board applications including staff approvals, thus
eliminating the requirement for further environmental review and HRB, ARB, Planning
Commission or City Council review. Development proposals found not to be consistent
with the Plan, will be processed as amendments to the Plan requiring review the Planning
Commission and City Council.
S :LPLANkPLADIV\CMRkP SOB JEC
TENTATI~ SCHEDULE FOR PAMF/SOFA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
(REVISED SEPTEMBER 1997)
August 1997
September 1997
October 1997
November 1997
December 1997
January 1998
February 1998
March 1998
April 1998
May1998
June 1998
July 1998
August1998
September 1998
Council initiated PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan
Working Group: Appointment by Council Council adopts Policy
Framework and Goals and Objectives Working Group: First meeting,
review Of Policy Framework, Establishment of schedule and meetings
Staff interviews consulting teams & negotiates contract
TAG: Staff Technical Advisory Group formed
Working Group: Begin review of existing conditions
Consultant contract to Council
TAG: Finalize data base and existing conditions
Working Group: begin alternatives exploration
Working Group: Alternatives development
TAG: Begin technical analysis of alternatives
EIR - Notice of Preparation and scoping
Working Group: Alternatives Evaluation re Goals & Objectives
TAG: comparative analysis of alternatives
EIR: Describe baseline conditions, affected environment
Community Update Forum: Comments on alternatives
Review and comment from Boards, Commission and Council
on preferred alternative. EIR: Alternatives description
Working Group: Refine preferred alternative
Consultant: Begin conceptual plan preparation.
EIR: Begin impact analysis
TAG: Review Administrative Draft Concept Plan and 60% EIR
EIR: Complete impact analysis
Working Group: Preliminary Draft Plan review
Consultant: Conceptual Coordinated Area Plan for Public Review
Working Group: Draft Plan review
EIR: Administrative Draft review
Consultant: Revisions to Draft Plan Working Group: Implementation,
capital improvements plan, guidelines & development standards review;
EIR: Produce Draft EIR
Consultant: Production of Final Draft Coordinated Area Plan EIR:
Production of Draft EIR for Public Review
Public Review of Final Coordinated Area Plan, Comprehensive Plan
Amendments and Zoning Amendments; Public Review of Draft EIR
Review/Approval: ARB, HRB/PAC, Planning Commission
EIR: Certification of EIR
Council Adoption of Coordinated Area Plan, Zoning Amendments
and Comprehensive Plan
S:\PLANkPLADIV~CMRkPSOBJEC
ATTACHMENT G
The planning process to this point included the following:
Date:
September 1997 to May 1999
Action:
Commencement of WG meetings. Completion of three
meetings with the Technical Advisory Group
(composed of City staff from all Departments);
November 1997 Staff preparation of existing conditions report in
November 1997; WG preparation of three concept
plans, exploring various options for development of
the area; WG review of the three concept plans and
formulation of one Plan;
March 1998 Completion of a Community Update Forum, attended
by more than 90 individuals;
April 1998 Mid-point review by both the Planning Commission
and City Council;
December 1998 Staff preparation of the first draft Plan; WG review of
the December 1998 draft Plan;
March 10, 1998 Architectural Review Board, Historic Review Board,
Planning Commission and Public Art’s commission
review of the December 1998 draft Plan;
May1999 Staff preparation of a second draft Plan; WG review of
the May 1999 draft Plan; Staff preparation of a third
and final draft Plan based upon. the WG final direction;
Staff recommendation that the Plan be implemented in
two phases to allow additional analysis for the area of
the Plan located generally west of Ramona Street; June
1999 publication of the final WG draft Plan to be
considered by Council; Architectural Review Board,
Historic Review Board, Planning Commission review
of the June 1999 WG final Plan.
It should also be noted that because of the great interest in the development of the plan,
staff has encouraged active participation by the WG alternates and public in all meetings.
Opportunities for public involvement were provided via oral communication at each
working group meeting convened.
ATTACHMENT H
Neighborhood
park and Roth
Building
Affordable
Housing
Residential land
use changes
Non-residential
land use changes
Other land use
changes
Non-conforming
USeS
2.5-acre park
located on
Waverley St
Retention of
Scott Park (0.4
acres)
¯15% BMR ¯
contribution on
all PAMF
properties
¯1.5 acre oftand,
dedicated on
Main PAMF
block (block B)
As designated on
Plan Concept
(Attachment A) and
included in the June
9, 1999 Plan
As designated on
Plan Concept
(Attachment A) and
included in the June
9, 1999 Plan
As designated on
Plan Concept
(Attachment A) and
included in the June
9, 1999 Plan
Use of Roth building
for satellite PAMF
clinic
2.41-acre park
and public
facility. (Roth
Building)
Scott Park
¯0.5 acre less park
¯0.41 additional public
facility (Roth
Building)
¯Scott Park acreage
acreage (0.4
acres) to be sold,
upon voter
approval.
¯Park located on
Homer Avenue
between Bryant
and Waverley
15% BMR
contribution
(0.75 acres) on
PAMF
developing
properties
¯1.23 acre site on
Research
Building block
(Block C).
Option to reduce
size to 0.9 acres
As designated on
Plan Concept -
Figure A
(Attachment E)
included in this
report. "
As designated on
Staff Alternative Plan
Concept (Attachment
E) included in this
report.
As designated on
Staff Alternative Plan
Concept (Attachment
E) included in this
report.
¯Use of Roth
building for
public facility or
satellite PAMF
clinic
¯Permit office
use at 737
Bryant Street
sold and all facilities
relocated to new park
If option to purchase
Roth building
exercised, different
location
¯0.27 acres or 0.6
acres less land
¯Located on Block C
not Block B
¯Designate Scott Park
DHS if voters
approve sale
¯Increase area of AMF
designation on
PAMF main b!ock to
leave 2.4-acres as PF
on block
¯Designate 260-66
Homer and 819
Ramona AMF
¯Designate 260-66
Homer and 819
Ramona AMF and
permit non-
residentia!/mixed-use
¯Retain current CD-
S(P) zoning on 820
Ramona Street
¯Move Phase line to
incorporate all PAMF
properties in Phase I
and properties at NE
corner of
Ramona/Homer
¯Roth building to be
used as a public
facility
¯Office use at 737
B~,ant Street
permitted
Phase I
Phase 1
Phase I
Phase I
Phase I
Phase I
Exception
Process
Circulation
Historic
Preservation
Phasing of the
Plan
Childcare
See WG draft Plan -
Chapter IV, for
details
Convert
Homer/Channing
Avenue and portion
of High Street to two-
way once Whole
Foods and Channing
House Issues
resolved
Defer all Historic
Preservation to
Historic Preservation
Ordinance
Split Plan area into
two areas as shown
on Plan Concept
(Figure A) included
in the June 9, 1999
Plan
12,500 sq.ft, site for
center for 50 or more
children
See Staff SOFA Plan
for details
(Attachment E)
Explore traffic
calming methods for
Homer and Channing
Avenue that could
include narrowing
traffic lanes, bulb-
outs or conversion to
two-way traffic flow
(once Whole Foods
and Channing House
issues resolved)
Defer all Historic
Preservation to
Historic Preservation
Ordinance
Split Plan area into
two areas as shown
on Staff Altemative
Plan Concept
(Attachment E)
included in this
report
12,500 sq.ft, site for
center for 50 or more
children
Traffic calming methods
studied and current one-
~vay traffic flow retained
until issues are resolved at
Whole Foods and
Chanfling House
Same
Staff Plan incorporates all
PAMF properties and
comer properties at
Homer/Ramona
Same
PhaseI
Phase II
Implemented
in Phase I on
properties
generally east
of Ramona,
Implemented
in Phase II on
properties
generally west
of Ramona
Phase I
PhaseI
ATTACHMENT I
PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION (PAMF) PROPERTIES
739-77 !
RA MO~YA
[] Indicates properties owned by PAMF. [] Indicates properties long-term leased to PAMF.
Block A:
Block B:
45,000 sq. ft. -
200,000 sq. ft. -
Block C:84,400 sq. ft. -
Block D:46,400 sq. ft. -
Parcel E:20,400 sq. ft.
Parcel F:8,250 sq. ft.
Parcel G:12,500 sq. ft.
Parcel H:6,400 sq. ft.
Parcel I:5,000 sq. ft.
Parcel J:12,500 sq. ft.
Northwest corner of Bryant Street and Homer Avenue.
Main Clinic Block (400 ft. x 500 ft.) known as 300 Homer.
Includes Parcel I which is long-term leased by PAMF.
Research Block.
Includes Parcel J (12,500 sq. ft..) which is long-term leased by
PAMF. Lot at 824 Bryant, a dental office, is not owned by PAMF.
Urgent Care Clinic and parking.
-Parking lot at Waverley & Channing.
-Parking lot at Bryant & Channing.
-.Parking lot at Ramona & Channing.
-Warehouse property at 820 Ramona Street.
-Long-term leased to PAMF for 65 more years - assignable.
-Long-term leased to PAMF for 90 more years - assignable.
Square footages are based on ai3proximate dimensions.
ATTACHMENT J
Summary of Planning Commission, Historic Resources Board
Architectural Review Board and Public Arts Commission
Planning Commission comments from March 10,1999
(The total number of commission members sharing a position is indicated in parentheses)
HOUSING
¯Housing densities in mixed use are too dense for SOFA area (4)
¯Housing density near to transit is appropriate (2)
¯Non-residential square footage seems to encourage more jobs/employees than housing units
proposed (4)
¯Support the relocation of historic structures to accommodate an affordable housing project if
necessary (4)
¯Affordable housing site without constraints of existing trees/historic structures should be
considered, up to 2 acres (3)
¯Require 15% BMR contribution from PAMF (1)
TRANSPORTATION/CI RCULATION
¯Need a compelling reason to change circulation on Homer/Channing/High to two-way (6)
¯Further background information would be useful on the and reasons for converting
Hamilton/Lytton to two-way and the problems experienced (3)
¯Re-asses the conversion to two-way after initial changes and growth (1)
¯Explore alternative means of calming traffic in-lieu of two-way conversion (2)
¯Recommend a solution that calms traffic but accommodates the needs and safety of Whole
Foods and Channing House (4)
¯Remove Scott Street extension (1)
PARK
Relocate Park to top of PAMF main block along Waverley Street, designate corner where the
park is currently proposed as multi-family housing (5)
¯Desire as much park as can be acquired (1)
¯Recommend that the neighborhood not pay for park acquisition (2)
¯Recommend that funding options for a park be identified (2)
¯Suggested 2.5 acre park (4)
DESIGN AND BUILDING
¯Design guidelines are valuable in SOFA but need flexibility built into process (3)
¯Maintain the Planned Community process but refine what the public benefit is Citywide (4)
¯Design guidelines in mixed use need more study, massing models and more background
information (4)
¯Concerned with proposed allowable FAR in MU areas (4)
¯More residential FAR instead of non-residential FAR (1)
OTHER
¯Historic: recommend that analysis of the structures likely to remain be completed and identify
those sites that would be redeveloped (1)
¯Neighborhood retail: explore facilitating neighborhood serving retail through additional incentives
or other mechanism. (1)
Historic Resources Board comments from February 3, 1999
¯Identify specific buildings of neighborhood significance beyond those protected by the
Preservation Ordinance
¯Support for two-way conversion
June 2, 1999 S: tPlanlPladivlPamfsofalSummaryatPC.doc
¯Support relocation of historic buildings where appropriate.Use of Williams House gardens should
be compatible with historic preservation
¯Preserve the200 block of Homer Avenue in some way, ie historic district, additional incentives
etc.
¯Extend HRB to review of development adjacent to historic resources
¯Allow non-complying historic resources to remain as preservation incentive
Architectural Review Board comments from March 10, 1999
¯ARB members have an overwhelming concern the Plan is not complete
¯The Plan needs a lot of work in order to be more specific in commercial and residential areas.
¯The Plan. is too broad in scope.
¯The deadline for completing the Plan is inappropriately being driven by 1/5 of the plan area.
¯The result is right now not conyincing as an appropriate way of handling this area.
¯In the spirit of the ARB’s comments - there is currently no support from ARB on this entire
document
Public
o
o
Arts Commission comments from February 18, 1999
Murals at the Roth building be preserved and attention is directed to the murals through
appropriate signage
Public art be incorporated into the design of the park
Public art be incorporated into the design of the utility wall at the Alma substation
Public art be required in development standards for the mixed use areas
June 2, 1999 S: IPlanlPladivlPamfsofalSummaryatPC.doc