Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 194-07C ty City of Pa o A to TO: FROM: DATE: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER APRIL 16, 2007 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 194:07 SUBJECT:3401, 3415, AND 3445 ALMA STREET (ALMA PLAZA): CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE TO A PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) DISTRICT TO ALLOW DEMOLITION OF THREE BUILDINGS, INCLUDING THE VACANT ALBERTSON’S STORE, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE PROJECT INCLUDING 24~000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL/COMMERCIAL SPACE, 14 BELOW MARKET RATE APARTMENTS, AND 39 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES; REFERRAL OF THE PROJECT FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD; AND APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Transportation Commission (PT&C) and staffrecommend that the City Council deny the request for a rezoning application to a Planned Community (PC) district for the three properties located at 3401, 3415, and 3445 Alma Street as submitted and instead adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) that approves a PC zone with the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) uses and standards and site and design review incorporated by reference, subject to public benefits and conditions of approval outlined by the P&TC. Specific Council actions would include: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment J) for the project at 3401, 3415, and 3445 Alma Street, with a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts; and CMR: 194:07 Page 1 of 7 Granting a Zone Change from the existing Planned Community (PC-1362) district to a new Planned Community (PC) district, as outlined in Attachment A. BACKGROUND On March 8 and March 28, 2007, the P&TC conducted public hearings to review the proposed Planning Community zone change application. On March 8, 2007, P&TC indicated that (1) more retail area is needed, such as a minimum 15% of the site area comparable to the CN zone regulations, (2) housing should be better integrated with the commercial area with more market rate apartments above retail and some shared wall duets for the single family homes, (3) the open space should be more integrated and the park should be larger, and (4) pedestrian connectivity should be improved and a more inviting gateway provided, with a concern over the proposed zero front setback without corresponding provision of improved open space behind the retail area. On March 28, 2007, the P&TC recommended approving a rezoning to a PC district with the CN uses and standards and site and design review incorporated by reference with the following additional conditions: Grocery store be included with a minimum size of 15,000 sq. ft; Parkland be provided to the level required by the Quimby Act and located adjacent to retail; Minimum of. 15 FAR ground floor retail be maintained over the site as a whole in perpetuity; Housing design to create a fluid transition between mixed use, housing and open space and to provide a greater variety of housing types; The mixed use portion of the development to be one parcel (excluding the areas dedicated as public open space); Pedestrian access to accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists; and Option to include office space in the vertical mixed use component of the project. The P&TC identified the following items as the acceptable public benefits set forth in the proposal: °Quimby Act minimum park land dedication; °LEED Silver certification; ¯Additional BMR as rental units; and °Community meeting room (to serve a community, not only art studio) The Palo Alto Child Care Advisory Council (PACC), who attended both P&TC hearings, has suggested that an appropriate public benefit for this development, with its BMR housing component, could be a donation to the PACC trust fund for childcare subsidy purposes. The P&TC also noted several project concessions that the City should consider granting in exchange for the public benefits: CMR: 194:07 Page 2 of 7 ¯Relief from the 30-foot front special setback; ¯Additional FAR for rental BMR units; ° Counting storage and office basement space in the grocery store as ground floor retail; and ¯Overall intensity of housing in a neighborhood commercial center. The verbatim minutes of the P&TC March 8 and March 28 meetings are included with this report as Attachments C and D, and the P&TC staff reports are included as Attachments E and F. Project Description The applicant proposes a conceptual plan for redevelopment of the site that includes the following revisions from the earlier proposal: The amount of commercial retail area increases from 19,200 square feet to 24,000 square feet. This includes: a.Mixed use building ground floor retail (17,300 square feet) b.Basement office, storage and service area (3,507 square feet) c.Community room (1,330 square feet) d.Smaller commercial/neighborhood office space (1,863 square feet) 2.Below Market Rate (BMR) housing remains at fourteen units located on the second floor of the mixed use building with tenant underground parking. The number of single family residences is reduced from forty-five to thirty-nine units. The detached, small lot, single family residences are a mix of two- and three-stories and range in size from 1,817 square feet to 2,416 square feet, not including the garage square footage. 4.The number of proposed parking spaces is increased by fifty-three spaces for commercial retail shoppers, residents and guests of the BMR and single family housing. 5.Site amenities, including a dedicated, improved and maintained public park area, gathering spaces and a community room in the mixed use building. The applicant has provided additional project information in their Development Program Statement and Project Description letter (Attachment B). DISCUSSION Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zoning At the March 8, 2007 P&TC hearing, several Commissioners provided direction to use the current CN standards as a baseline for comparison of the proposal as a "neighborhood center." Staff also recommends that rezoning to a PC district with conditions including compliance with the allowable uses and development standards of the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning district rather than the applicant’s proposed PC district. This would assure a greater quantity of CMR: 194:07 Page 3 of 7 retail than the applicant’s PC proposal and would provide greater certainty that a future development would accommodate a neighborhood center, while also providing for a mixed use project. A mixed use project would require Site and Design Review if more than four residential units are proposed. Under the CN criteria, the existing Alma Plaza center could be renovated or rebuilt as a conforming use. The CN neighborhood commercial district is intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas primarily accommodating retail sales, personal services, eating and drinking establishments, and office uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood, under regulations that will assure maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas. The adjacent medical office property to the south is zoned Neighborhood Commercial. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the three subject properties is Neighborhood Commercial, so the use of the CN zone district and development standards would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. The following table compares the proposed project to the current CN standards for the 4.2 acre (183,546 square-feet) site. The project would need to be modified in regards to Maximum Residential Floor Area and Minimum Mixed Use Ground Floor Commercial Floor Area regulations in order to comply with the CN standards. Residential Density (net) Maximum Residential Floor Area (FAR) Maximum Non-Residential Floor Area (FAR) Mini~num Mixed Use Ground Floor Commercial Floor Area (FAR) Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) CN Mixed Use Zoning Standard 15 units / acre 0.5:1 0.4:1 Minimum 15% (0.15) FAR = 27,531 sq. ft. required 0.9:1 Proposed Project 12.6 units / acre 0.54:1 (.07 BMR units + .47 SFD’s) 0.13:1 18,250 s.f. of ground floor commercial FAR --10% (0,10) FAR 0.67:1 ALTERNATIVES If the P&TC recommendation to approve the project with conditions outlined previously is not accepted by the applicant, then no project (PC) is approved. Alternatives to the P&TC recommendation include: Granting a Zone Change from the existing Planned Community (PC-1362) district to a new Planned Community (PC) district with conditions of approval that would be acceptable to the applicant. This would require the Council modifying the PC Ordinance to reflect these changes to the conditions. The PC ordinance would not return to the P&TC but the Site and Design review would be reviewed by the Commission, ARB and Council; CMR: 194:07 Page 4 of 7 2.Initiating a Zone Change from the existing Planned Community (PC-1362) district to a CN zone (see below); or 3.Denial, and await a future application. If the Council initiates a zone change to CN as described in Alternative 2, the rezoning process is outlined in Section 18.98 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code: The City Council or Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) directs the Planning Director to initiate a zoning amendment. The P&TC sets a date for a regular or special meeting of the P&TC, including a public hearing and notice to the property owner and surrounding property owners. The Commission may recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning, modification of the area to be rezoned, application of more or less restrictive zoning, or denial of the rezoning. The decision of the Commission is forwarded to the City Council, including the Commission’s findings and determinations for the requested zone change. Upon notice and a public hearing, the City Council takes final action regarding the zoning. ECONOMIC IMPACT While Alma Plaza is currently a revenue generator for the City, the proposed project would renovate and revitalize the site, generating additional one-time and ongoing revenues to the General Fund. Specifically, the one-time revenues would include documentary transfer taxes and development impact fees, totaling in the $600,000 to $640,000 range. The additional annual revenues would include property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes, totaling in the $100,000 to $110,000 range. First, the property improvements in the commercial areas and the single-family homes would add $51 million in assessed value, which translates to $48,000 in added property tax revenue to the City. The Below-Market Rate apartments would presumably be exempt from property tax. Second, UUT revenues would be generated by the new residents of the project and by the businesses occupying the commercial space. Using average monthly utility expenses for commercial businesses and residences, as well as average monthly telephone bills, the UUT revenue impact is estimated at $11,500. Actual UUT figures would depend upon the mix and types of retail and office tenants located at the site. Thirdly, employees of the businesses and residents of the new units would incur sales taxes in their routine purchases within the City, and the grocery store sales would also generate sales tax revenue. Combined, these are projected to be in the $49,000 range. Again, actual figures would depend upon the mix and types of businesses that locate at the site, volume of foot traffic to the site, and other factors. As for one-time fees, the Planning Department estimates that development impact fees would be $450,000, and the expected sales value of the single-family homes and the commercial space would yield a one-time $154,000 to $187,000 in documentary transfer tax revenues. CMR: 194:07 Page 5 of 7 In-lieu fees would not be assessed, due to the public benefits yielded by the below-market housing. On the expenditure side, the project would create 53 new residential units to the City housing stock. This will create new demands for City services such as Community Services, Planning, Police and Fire. The development impact fees are designed to cover the incremental facility needs of the new residents, and service fees in Community Services and Planning are designed to recoup operating expenses associated with the delivery of classes, sports programs, plan reviews, project permits, and other services. Police and Fire services to these additional housing units . would be paid by the General Fund, but should be absorbed within the current budget. Lastly, the processing of the development application is on a cost/recovery basis, and no additional funds are necessary for staffing. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Attachment G provides the policies and programs listed in the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element that are pertinent to the project and most specifically to Neighborhood Commercial development. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed PC project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Initial Study) was prepared for the project and based upon the EIA, it was determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment with the proposed mitigation measures regarding trees and noise impacts. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review from February 16 through March 7, 2007. Following the P&TC recommendation to rezone to a new PC district with CN standards an addendum was prepared to update the project description to reflect the changes in the proposed development. The traffic impact study prepared for the Initial Study considered the additional trips generated by a CN zoning for the retail component. No additional significant environmental impacts are expected, therefore the modified document would need not be recirculated. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: BETH BOURNE Sem0~Planner,~.~_~//~t-’j’ STEVE FdlVISLIE Dire~ann~n~gand C~ty Environment Assistant’City Manager CMR: 194:07 Page 6 of 7 ATTACHMENTS A.Draft Planned Community Ordinance B.Applicant’s Development Program Statement and Project Description C.Excerpt of Verbatim Minutes of the March 8 P&TC meeting D.Excerpt of Verbatim Minutes of the March 28 P&TC meeting E.Planning and Transportation Commission staff report dated March 8, 2007 (without attachments) F.Planning and Transportation Commission staff report dated March 28, 2007 (without attachments) G.Key Considerations/Policy Implications Matrix H.Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zoning Compliance Table I.Correspondence received after March 28th meeting J.Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Revised) K.Project Plans (Council Members only) COURTESY COPIES Patrick Costanzo, Jr., Executive Vice President, Greenbriar Homes Communities, Inc. John McNellis, McNellis Partners, LLC James Baer, Premier Properties David L. Van Der Wilt Sheri Furman Jay Hammer Marilyn Keller Martin Stone CMR: 194:07 Page 7 of 7 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3401, 3415 AND 3445 ALMA STREET FROM PC PLANNED COMMUNITY 1362 TO PC PLANNED COMMUNITY (McNELLIS PARTNERS, LLC AND GREENBRIAR HOMES COMMUNITIES, INC., APPLICANTS) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. (a) McNellis Partners, LLC, a California limited liability corporation, and Greenbriar Homes Communities, Inc., a California corporation, ("the Applicant") formally applied on July 18, 2006 to the City for approval of a rezoning application to a Planned Communty (PC) district for three properties located at 3401, 3415 and 3445 Alma Street. (b) The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearings held March 8 and 28, 2007, reviewed, considered, and recommended approval of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to Planned Community to permit construction of the Project, as revised by conditions included in the Planned Community allowable land uses and required development standards, and subject to provision of the public benefits outlined below. (c) The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain properties known as 3401, 3415 and 3445 Alma Street (the "subject property") from "PC Planned Community 1362" to "PC Planned Community__ " SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the subject property that the project comprises a mixed use development, including: (a)Ground floor retail space; (b)Basement office, storage and service area to support the retail space; (c)A community meeting room; (d)Below market rate (BMR) rental apartments above the ground floor retail; (e)Single-family attached and/or detached residences; 070411 syn 0120217 NOT YET APPROVED (f)Three driveways on Alma Street and access to Ramona Street for single-family units with frontage on that street. (g)Alma Street frontage improvements to reconfigure the frontage road between East Meadow and the project to one-way travel; (h) A pedestrian pathway along the southern perimeter of the site connecting Alma Street to Ramona Street; (i) A park area designated for passive type recreational uses; and (j) Privately owned and maintained streets internal to the site. SECTION 4. A Development Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.120, shall be prepared and reviewed according to the Site and Design Review process outlined in Section 5 below. The Development Plan shall be subject to the following allowable and required uses, development standards, provisions of public benefits, and other conditions: (a) Permitted, Conditional, and Required Uses shall be allowed and limited as follows: (1) All permitted and conditional uses allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zone district, including mixed commercial and residential use, are allowed as provided in Chapter 18.16 of the Zoning Ordinance; and (2) A grocery store of a minimum size of 15,000 square feet is required. (b) Development Standards for the site shall comply with the standards prescribed for the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zone district (Chapter 18.16) and for the Planned Community (PC) zone district (Chapter 18.68). Additional criteria may be required as part of Site and Design (D) Combining District review. (c) Public Benefits Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The project includes the following public benefits that are inherent to the project and in excess of those required by city zoning districts: (1)Park land dedication and improvement to the standards of the City’s parkland (Quimby Act) ordinance; (2)Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver green building certification; (3) Below Market Rate (BMR) housing provided as rental units; and (4) Provision of a community meeting room 070411 syn 0120217 ¯ (d) Special Conditions (1)Variances and DEEs. A Variance or Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is required for all exceptions to the Planned Community (PC) zone standards prescribed in Section 18.68. ! 50 of the Zoning Code. 2 NOT YET APPROVED (2)Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Requirement. The Project shall provide rental housing units sufficient to satisfy the City’s Below Market Rate ("BMR") program. The units shall be second floor units above commercial uses in the mixed use building. The units shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR program requirements and shall be approved by the City prior to final map approval. (3)A grocery store shall be included in the project, with a minimum size of 15,000 sq. ft; (4)Parkland shall be provided to the level required by the City’s Parkland Dedication (Quimby Act) ordinance and shall be located adjacent to the retail component of the development; (5)A minimum of 0.15 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of ground floor retail space shall be maintained over the site as a whole in perpetuity; (6)The project design shall create a fluid transition between mixed use, housing and open space and shall provide a variety of housing types; (7)The mixed use portion of the development shall be one parcel (excluding areas dedicated as public open space); (8) Pedestrian access shall accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle access; and (9)Office space may be included in the vertical mixed use component of the project. SECTION 5. Site and Design Review and Approval Site and design review of the Development Plan for the project shall be required, pursuant to Chapter 18.82 (Site and Design Review Combining District Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance. // // // // // // // 070411 syn 0120217 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 6. its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: AB S TENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of APPROVED: Mayor City Manager 070411 syn 0120217 ATTACHMENT B Alma Plaza Development Program Statement 1.REQUIRED DETERMINATIONS FOR PC ZONE The PC Zone is intended to accommodate developments requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other zone districts. The PC Zone is particularly intended for a unified, comprehensively planned development that is of substantial public benefit, and, that complies with and enhances the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Alma Plaza project is such a unified project that complies with the Comprehensive Plan and provides significant public benefit. PAMC 18.68.060 that governs PC Zone Districts sets forth three required determinations necessary for adopting a PC Zone District: A. The site is so situated and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts, or combining districts, will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. The site currently consists of two PC Zone Districts, #1362 adopted on September 24, 1951, and PC#3163 In order to amend an existing PC Zone District a project must complete an application and satisfy the requirements of the PC Zone District under PAMC 18.68, as if the application were for a new PC Zone District. B. Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this Section, the Planning Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from the use of the Planned Community District. The Alma Plaza project provides substantial public benefits that far exceed public benefits recommended for approval during previous hearings for the Alma Plaza ... application Some details of the public benefits will be more fully developed by the time of the public hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission. * Revitalizing the current "blighted" site will enhance retail vitality and the community and neighborhood commercial experience with a quality grocer and other retail services; * Developing new retail and Commercial area of 24,000 square feet anchored by a full service grocer will provide services to the existing neighborhood and the new community that would not otherwise be available. Conditions of approval for the project will ensure that a grocer and otherretail services will be developed, maintained and preserved; * Improving the jobs/housing imbalance by the development of 39 single-family homes and 14 BMR rental units to be operated by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation ("PAHC") or another approved non-profit housing organization; * 14 BMR rental units will be provided as "turn key", completed units with 22 underground parking spaces, an elevator, private balconies and a shared community room. These 14 BMR units will be provided "in Lieu" of providing 6 of the 39 single- family homes on site. The "in lieu" fee under BMR guidelines would be about $3,500,0000. The construction costs for the 14 BMR units will be about $5,500,000 plus $1,000,000 for imputed costs of land and site improvements shared with the retail building .... for a total BMR project cost or $6,500.000. The BMR Units will be provided at no cost to the City for operation by the PAHC under a 59-year lease. This equates to a housing public benefit contribution of about $3,000,000 (the $6,500,000 total BMR cost less the approximately $3,500,000 that would be contributed as an "in lieu" housing fee). The Applicant, PAHC and the Palo Alto Unified School District ("PAUSD"), and community leaders involved with Housing Opportunities for Teachers ("HOT") are working to develop a program sothat these BMR Units will be made available on a priority basis to teachers and employees of the PAUSD at low, and low- moderate income rent levels. The only housing costs will be ongoing costs for property taxes, insurance, maintenance, utilities and other ordinary operating expenses; * Providing a community room of about 1330 square feet for shared use among the BMR residents and members of the community and the Pacific Art League. The Applicant plans on making this community room available to the Pacific Art League at no cost (other than utilities and maintenance) for 20 hours of classes each week for badly needed art class rooms. Classes will be offered at hours that are not peak hours for use by the grocery store and other retail tenants so that there will not be any parking demand conflicts. The total cost of this community room would be about $600,000. The community room is served by handicap accessible restrooms, and a storage area; * Granting for public use a perpetual easement for park area of approximately 8904 square feet that will enhance the public experience of the Alma Plaza center as a welcome gathering place. There is no other neighborhood retail center, E1 Camino commercial property, or area in the Downtown or California Avenue retail districts that provide a public park as gathering place. The homeowners’ association for the 39 single-family homes will maintain the park; * The Mixed-Use Retail and BMR building will be Palo Alto’s first approved project to satisfy LEED Silver Medal standards of sustainable design. This will be one more environmental "first" for Palo Alto as we are aware of no retail or grocery center that will have achieved this level of sustainable design leadership. The 39 single-family homes will also satisfy the highest standard of sustainable design yet approved by the City for a housing project; * Granting for public use a perpetual easement to all walkways and seating areas associated with the Alma Plaza Center; * Developing information kiosks and bicycle amenities as an element of the Alma Plaza Center; * Contributing to the Charleston-Arastradero public safety transportation program, Park, Library and Community Center impact fess will be about $450,000; * Providing a modern urban design that will enhance the vehicular and pedestrian experience along the Alma corridor and consistent with Site Development Guidelines recently adopted by the City for Mixed-Use projects; * Improving the Alma Street frontage and eliminating the dangerous two-way lane between Alma Plaza and East Meadow Drive in an "island area" east of Alma for only this one-half-block area. By so improving the Alma Street frontage, the supply of public parking between East Meadow and the Alma Plaza project will increase to 15 parking spaces for public use. C. The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the District, shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. Compliance with Neighborhood Center Policies and Programs as determined by the City Council and Staff at the May 1 Public Hearing. During preliminary review by the City Council (Council") on May 1, 2006, the Planning Staff and Council specifically addressed and corrected comments made by several Planning Commissioners that Policy L-37 requires that the current size of the retail area may not be reduced, or that the retail area for Alma Plaza must be no less than the next smallest Neighborhood Center . (Edgewood Plaza, and Charleston Plaza). Policy L-37 states: "Maintain the scale and local-serving focus of Palo Alto’s four Neighborhood Centers." However, Policy L-37 continues by incorporating the next immediately following Programs L-36, Program L- 37, Policy L-38, Policy L-39 and Program L-38. The subsequent Policies and Programs that embody the full range of policies related to Neighborhood Centers include moderate density housing, and urban design amenities such as gathering places. The collective programs and policies specifically referenced in Policy L-37 anticipate a mix of homes and retail, uses with substantially reduced retail area but prohibiting large "box retailers" as an element of maintaining "the scale and local-serving focus. " Attachment #5 provides the Comprehensive Plan provisions specifically related to Alma Plaza and Neighborhood Centers and relevant portions of the May 1, 2006 Council study session. Land Use and Community Design goals and policies will be enhanced. The proposed project satisfies all of the policies and programs related to Neighborhood Serving Retail Centers with re-vitalized retail services anchored by a full-service grocer, gathering places,a dedicated park area much like a village green, adequate parking, improved Alma Street frontage, a mix of uses including BMR rental apartments. The project will enhance the sense of "community" through design by creating a strong sense of place, thereby fostering public life. The project contributes to the South Palo Alto residential neighborhood with services available to the public in this now blighted center. The buildings, landscaping and site plan will enhance City streets and public spaces. The project will become an attractive and safe for families. Transportation goals and policies will be enhanced with reduction of nearly 1000 daily Vehicle trips. Pedestrian and bicycle features will encourage modes of transportation that are not dependent on a vehicle. Housing Opportunities goals and policies will be enhanced through the development of 39 single-family homes and 14 BMR rental apartments. The unit density is less than half of the density proposed in Program L-38. Natural Environment goals and policies will be enhanced by new storm water control measures, and an energy-efficiency program to be implemented by the applicant both for the residences and for the commercial areas. The mixed-use building will satisfy Silver Medal LEED standards and will be the highest performing Palo Alto project - ever - with respect to Sustainable Design. Business and Economics goals and policies will be enhanced by the project through the re-vitalized retail services it will provide. 2.PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE PC ZONE DISTRICT. The proposed uses shall include single-family housing, multiple-family housing, retail and personal services, neighborhood-serving office, a community room, public park, and landscape and walkways ancillary to the uses described in this Section and other permitted and conditional uses as set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.16 applicable to the Midtown and Charleston Shopping Centers.. There are no special conditions to the proposed uses other than restrictions associated with any BMR Agreement or covenants related to retail uses proposed for the project. (a) Retail and Commercial Areas: Ground Floor Retail/Personal Service: Basement Retail/Personal Service and Storage: Second Floor Community Room: Separate Commercial Building: TOTAL AREA: 17,300 s.f. 3,507 s.f. 1,330 s.f. 1,863 s.f. 24,000 s.f The Separate Commercial Building will consist of retail services and neighborhood- serving office and commercial uses; the Community Room will consist of retail, personal service, commercial recreation and community center uses) (b) Single-Family Residential: Plan Type Units Floor Area Description Plan 1: 3-stories 12 2,187 s.f.3BR/Bonus/4.5Bath Plan 2: 3-Stories 8 2,311 s.f.3BR/Bonus/4.5Bath Plan 2x: 2-Stories 4 1,817 s.f.3BR/4.5Bath Plan 3: 3-Stories 10 2,416 s.f.3BR/Bonus/4.5Bath Plan 4:2- Stories 2 2,154 s.f.4BR/4.5 Bath Plan 5: 2-Stories 1 1,901 s.f 3BR/3.5 Bath Plan 6: 2-Stories 2 1,956 s.f.4BR/4.5 Bath TOTAL:39 86,281 s.f (c) BMR Apartments: Plan Type Units Floor Area Plan 1 12 686-933 s.f. Plan 2 2 1,091- 1,230s.f. Total 14 10,970 Common Area:NA 2,297s.f. TOTAL:14 13,267 s.f. Description 1 BR 2 BR Alma Plaza Construction Scheduled as of 12/20/06 Alma Plaza construction will begin following the recordation of the Final Map. The construction schedule is as follows: Final Map Recordation: Pull Grading Permit: Site Grading Site Utilities Begin Retail Building Foundation Begin Residential Foundations Sept. 2007 Sept. 2007 Sept. to mid-Nov. 2007 Mid-Nov. 2007 through April 2008 Jan. 2008 Jan. 2008 ALMA PLAZA Fulfilling Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Centers Defined The Comprehensive Plan defines the characteristics of a Neighborhood Center three times.., each of which refers to a small center with a small service area. Page L-11 Land Use Designation Neighborhood Commercial: Includes shopping centers with off street parking or a cluster of storefront stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. Examples include Alma Plaza, Charleston Center, Edgewood Center, and Midtown. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may also locate in this category. Page L-18 Neighborhood Centers are small retail centers with a primary trade area limited to the immediately surrounding area; often anchored by a grocery or drug store and may include a variety of smaller retail shops and offices oriented toward the everyday needs of surrounding residents. Selected streets provide waling and biking connections from adjacent neighborhoods. Page L-28 - Page L-29 Neighborhood Centers Alma Plaza, Charleston Center, Edgewood Plaza, Midtown POLICY L-37: Maintain the scale and local-serving focus of Palo Alto’s four Neighborhood Centers. Support their continued improvement and vitality. Neighborhood Centers are smaller than Multi-neighborhood Centers and have more limited service areas. They should be pleasant, attractive places that provide opportunities ~br shopping as well as social contact with friends and neighbors. PROGRAM L-36: Evaluate current zoning to determine if it supports the types and uses and scale of buildings considered appropriate in Neighborhood Centers. PROGRAM L-37: Encourage property owners within Neighborhood Centers to prepare master plans, with the participation of local businesses, property owners, and nearby residents. POLICY L-38: Encourage maximum use of Neighborhood Centers by ensuring that the publicly maintained areas are clean, well-lit, and attractively landscaped. POLICY L-38: Facilitate opportunities to improve pedestrian-oriented commercial activity within Neighborhood Centers. PROGRAM L-38: Revise land use and zoning designations as needed to encourage medium density (20 to 25 units per acre) within or near Neighborhood Centers ... to support a more vial mix of commercial activities. Neighborhood Centers and Housing The Comprehensive Plan encourages housing among Neighborhood Centers and Commercial Areas referring to mixed-use contents nine times. Page L-18 POLICY L-19: Encourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix of small-scale local businesses. Page L-29 PROGRAM L-38: Revise land use and zoning designations as needed to encourage medium-density housing (20 to 25 units per acre) within or near Neighborhood Centers to support a more vital mix of commercial activities. Page H-7 PROGRAM H-l: Increase housing density immediately surrounding commercial areas. Palo Alto has a variety of commercial and mixed commercial/residential areas (such as California Avenue), two multi-modal transit centers, and a network of bus routes serving its commercial areas. Allowing increased density in these areas achieves a number of important objectives. It allows the housing supply to be increased while minimizing visual and physical impacts on nearby lower density areas. It also encourages the use of transit, reduces auto dependency and supports the City’s air quality goals. Page H- 13 POLICY H-3: Continue to support the re-designation of suitable vacant or underutilized lands for housing or mixed-uses containing housing. Page H- 15 POLICY H-4: Encourage mixed-use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality. Commercial areas and parking lots offer some of the best opportunities for new housing. Residences can be built over stores, parking lots and even some industrial buildings. Page H-19 PROGRAM H-16: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process, evaluate an___~d improve existing incentives that encourage mixed-use (with a residential component) and residential development on commercially zoned land and establish development standards that will encourage development of the maximum amount of housing permitted under the allowed density range, particularly for projects that provide affordable housing. Page H-19 PROGRAM H-17: Use coordinated area plans and other tools to develop regulations that support the development of housing above and among commercial uses. Page B-9 POLICY B-17: Where redevelopment is desired, encourage owners to upgrade commercial properties through incentives. Some of these properties could provide a source of additional housing through mixed-use development. In some situations, incentives like reduced parking requirements or increased floor area allowances may encourage redevelopment and at the same time contribute to housing or community design goals. Page L-8 POLICY L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed-use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed-use development. Neighborhood Centers and Vitality Balanced Re-Development with Neighborhood Character The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for Neighborhood Centers to be re- developed with incentives such as housing, parking and even assessments to overcome economic challenges and failed market competition. Page L-28 POLICY L-37: Maintain the scale and local-serving focus of Palo Alto’s four Neighborhood Centers. Support their continued improvement and vitality. Page L- 17 POLICY L-15: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces. Page L- 18 POLICY L-18: Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of selected Centers in a manner that is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Page B-5 POLICY B-6: Maintain distinct neighborhood shopping areas that are attractive, accessible and convenient to nearby residents. Page B-9 POLICY B-17: Where redevelopment is desired, encourage owners to upgrade commercial properties through incentives such as reduced parking requirements, credit for on-street parking and increase allowable floor area. Use such incentives only where they are needed to stimulate redevelopment or contribute to housing or community design goals. Neighborhood Centers and Amenities The Comprehensive Plan encourages amenities such as public art, gathering places and pedestrian and bicycle connections. Page L-28 POLICY L-37: Neighborhood Centers are smaller than Multi-neighborhood Centers and have more limited service areas. They should be pleasant, attractive places that provide opportunities for shopping as well as social contact with friends and neighbors. Page L-29 POLICY L-38: Encourage maximum use of Neighborhood Centers by ensuring that the publicly maintained areas are clean, well-lit and attractively landscaped. Page L-29 POLICY L-39: Facilitate opportunities to improve pedestrian-oriented commercial activity within Neighborhood Centers. Page L- 18 POLICY L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. Well-designed storefronts with attractive display windows and building entries at frequent intervals are inviting to shoppers. They help support retail vitality by encouraging people to stay in the area and move from store to store. These features are particularly important at comers because they draw shoppers across streets to continue shopping. They also provide opportunities to convey the image and character of the center to motorists. South Palo Alto Design Guidelines Page ECR-9 The architecture should have a strong presence. Buildings should address the street with a sharp edge and should become a more pedestrian-oriented street, even while carrying large values of traffic by addressing street frontage design. Page ECR-8 Provide a compatible mix of uses in aesthetically pleasing and well-sited buildings. Create an identity that is specific to South Palo Alto. Guiding Principals The South E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines provide a direction for enhancing the quality of E1 Camino Real. 1.Create a pattern of pedestrian-oriented "nodes" linked by corridors 2.Create a pedestrian-oriented 12-foot sidewalk along E1 Camino real featuring trees, planters and seating 3.Bring Buildings up to the sidewalk to reinforce the definition and importance of the street. 4.Public amenities such as wider sidewalks, outdoor seating or outdoor dining are encouraged where appropriate. Buildings should have a minimum height of twenty-five feet in order to provide a presence in scale with E1 Camino Real. Two -and three-story buildings are strongly encouraged. ALMA PLAZA Project Description February 2007 Taldng into consideration both the site’s constraints as well as the best practices from New Urbanism, this proposed mixed-use project for Alma Plaza offers: Neighborhood serving retail services of an appropriate size and with a tenant mix that will ensure long-term viability; Thirty nine single-family detached homes that will be compatible with existing neighborhoods; and Below market rate apartments to be operated by a non-profit housing organization. The Site and Its Constraints Alma Plaza is a transitional site. The land totals 182,952 square feet (approximately 4.21 acres); its western edge fronts onto Alma Street. Next to Alma Plaza on the north are the three-story Stanford Villa Apartments (zoned RM-30), among the densest housing in Palo Alto. The project’s easterly neighbors are a two-story apartment building zoned RM-15 and single-family homes on Ramona. Single-family homes on the Emerson cul-de-sac and a one-story medical office building border the project on the south. Alma Plaza’s redevelopment is impacted by severe ingress/egress limitations. Residential neighbors insist the site have no vehicular access from either Ramona Street or Emerson Street, thus limiting all access to Alma Street. The Stanford Villa Apartments and the adjacent medical office building each burden Alma Plaza site with access easements that must be honored. And the main driveway along Alma Street cannot be relocated farther south than its current location because, were it to be moved farther south, it would compound the traffic congestion that already exists at the East Meadow/Alma Street signalized intersection during the evening commute hours. The lack of a signal controlling the left turn into Alma Plaza further limits access. Additionally, the City has rejected a signalized left turn pocket into Alma Plaza due to its closeness to the Alma/Meadow signal. Alma Plaza’s Commercial Area: 24,000 Square Feet The proposed retail and commercial area consists of two buildings totaling 24,000 square feet. The primary retail building will contain about 22,137 square feet ("Market Building") and be located along Alma Street; a second two-story building of about 1,863 square feet will be located adjacent to the single-family homes. The Market Building’s street-side location will not only significantly enhance Alma’s view corridor and its walking desirability, but it will also eliminate the "sea of parldng" vista so often encountered with shopping centers. Urban Design Guidelines for Palo Alto and other communities favoring New Urbanism encourage buildings to be placed as near the street and sidewalk as possible in order to create a pedestrian "edge" bordering high-volume, wide vehicular arterials. The Market Building’s retail will be placed primarily on the first floor which will have a ceiling height of about 18 feet in order to create an attractive environment. Dedicated retail storage, food preparation and small office areas will be located in the Market Building’s underground garage. This design will maximize the area of retail display and direct customer service. The Applicants have provided plans showing a full-service grocery store df between 13,000 square feet and 18,000 square feet in size with ancillary shops. By way of comparison, Piazza’s has about 17,000 square feet and JJ&F has about 8,000 square feet, indicating that type of market and range of products that could readily be accommodated at Alma Plaza. In addition to an "anchor" market, the project will have space for as many as five other retail or personal service tenants--all at sizes designed to create the best opportunity for long-term success. Among the types of users likely to participate in this neighborhood retail center are a coffee shop, a dry cleaner drop station, a small postal service, a bakery, an ATM or other banking services and other retail services such as those found in Midtown. All of the retail stores will open onto the easterly or "inboard" side of the Market Building, thereby focusing the retail inward to the surrounding neighborhood and accentuating their neighborhood-serving uses. To address the concerns of Alma Plaza’s southerly neighbors, no pedestrian access will be provided from Emerson Street. Architecturally, a diversity of materials will be achieved through a mix of brick, plaster, glass and wood. The result will blend aesthetically with the new residential community. The Market Building’s second floor will contain a public community room of 1,330 square feet. The applicant proposes to make this room available at no cost to the Pacific Art League for 20 hours of evening classes each week, with class times set not to conflict with the market’s peak hours. Located adjacent to project’s single-family homes, a second retail building of 1,863 square feet will provide retail or personal services, or neighborhood commercial office uses. The commercial project satisfies parking requirements with 99 on-site spaces (ground floor retail area of 17,300 square feet @ 1 per 200 square feet = 86.5 spaces; 3,507 basement retail storage and ancillary services at 1 per 1,000 square feet = 3.5 spaces; 1863 square feet @ 1 per 250 square feet = 7 spaces; and 1,330 square feet of community room with no parking requirement because of off-hours use restrictions) Additionally, 15 on-street parking spaces will be provided in the upgraded portion of Alma Street (between East Meadow and the southerly boundary of Alma Plaza) in which the obsolete two-way northerly on-ramp from East Meadow onto Alma street will be converted into a one way drive with diagonal parking. Below Market Rate Rental Housing with PAUSD Priority Striving to meet the City’s work-force housing needs, the Market Building will be crowned with a second-story of 14 (12 one-bedroom and 2 two-bedroom) apartments with 22 dedicated underground parking spaces. Although the full cost of these apartment units will be between $5.5 million and $6.0 million, the apartments will be offered to the City and PAHC at no cost, thereby enabling PAHC to offer the apartments to individuals with very low income levels. The applicant is working with PAHC, PAUSD and community leaders involved with HOT (Housing Opportunities for Teachers) to develop a program by which PAUSD teachers have priority for these low rent apartments. 39 Detached Single-Family Homes In addition to the 14 work-force apartments, there will be 39 single-family detached homes behind the retail building; three of which will front onto Ramona Street consistent with the R-1 character of Ramona Street. The 39 homes will consist of two and three-story residences, ranging in size from 1,817 square feet to 2,416 square feet, each with a two-car garage that will be accessed by alleys at the rear of these homes. They will take their pedestrian access from heavily landscaped paseos, and will have at-grade private courtyards. Project amenities include an enhanced entry, featuring beautiful landscaping, architectural embellishments and public art to provide a discernable sense of place. The retail and residential uses in Alma Plaza will share its principal entrance to create a welcoming gateway into a cohesive, vibrant neighborhood. This will be strengthened by the landscaped paseos throughout the entire new community. While the retail will also share vehicular access rights across its parking lot with the single-family residences, decorative masonry walls will separate the two aspects of this mixed use project, giving each a separate sense of identity. Signage will be clear and informative, and lighting will be comprehensive, but unobtrusive for the new and surrounding residences. A great deal of care has been taken to assure that the proposed project fits well into the existing traditional single-family neighborhood that borders the project on the east and south sides, as well as the two and three-story apartments that border the project on the north and east side, and provides the desired neighborhood retail services and work-force housing. The proposed residential products and the retail with work-force housing provide a logical transition between the higher density apartments, the lower density single-family homes. Parking for the single-family homes will satisfy all requirements with 2 covered parking spaces in garages for each of the 39 homes (none of these spaces will be tandem) and 13 guest parking spaces that are in addition to any spaces that might be available on a shared basis with the retail center. Zoning requirements will be satisfied by the residential project with respect to technical matters: height, site coverage, Floor Area Ratio, unity density per acre and open space. Setbacks and daylight planes will require only a few minor Design Enhancement Exceptions adjacent to the three-story apartment building on the shared north property line as well as the two-story apartment building on Ramona Avenue. Sustainable Design Leadership Each of the commercial areas, below market rate rental units and the single-family homes will implement sustainable design features that exceed current Palo Alto standards. Among the required sustainability elements that will be implemented are the following features: Reduced light pollution beyond the project site Reduced ozone depletion through use ofHCFC-free refrigeration!HVAC Salvage of construction and demolition materials Compliance with C-3 storm water management with a combination of bio-swale and pervious parking areas to treat on-site storm water Among the voluntary elements of the sustainability program are the following: Evaluate exceeding Title 24 performance standards Energy Star appliances Fly ash will be used in concrete foundations and slabs Interior access to daylight R-19 insulation using recycled contents Ground floor access to outdoor areas for single-family homes Balconies for BMR units Low E insulated glass for the retail building Enhanced canopy with extensive new trees Double paned windows for the rental housing units Passive shading for the retail building Evaluation ofphotovoltaic panels Retain a LEED accredited professional to review retail construction documents The primary retail building has submitted a LEED sustainable design checklist with the commitment to achieve a 33-point score, thereby satisfying LEED Silver Medal standards. We believe this will be the first grocery-anchored retail center in California to achieve a Silver Medal standard. Public Amenities Including Dedicated Parkland The Comprehensive Plan discusses the features that should be incorporated into any revitalized Neighborhood Center. Alma Plaza will accommodate the following amenities necessary to create a successful pedestrian-friendly environment as well as substantial land dedicated as parldand: Dedicated Parkland (described below) Information Kiosk Attractive Signage Benches and Gathering Places Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections & Bicycle Parking Street Trees Attractive Landscaping Unobtrusive Lighting The Applicant has provided extensive pedestrian gathering places. There is a landscaped gathering place adjacent to the primary retail building of 8,904 square feet. This park area will be dedicated as parkland through the granting of a perpetual public easement, with maintenance of this park area to be the responsibility of the future home owners’ association for the 39 single- family homes. On the northeastern area outside the primary retail building is a generous seating and pedestrian area. This seating area, as well as interior sidewalks serving the retail building, will be granted to the public by means of a perpetual public easement, thereby protecting this gathering area for the future. Attachment C 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 and Transportation Commissio. Verbatim Minutes March 8, 2007 DRAFT EXCERPT 3401, 3415, and 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza)*: Request for rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) district for demolition of three buildings, including the vacant Albertson’s store, and construction of a mixed use proj ect including 24,000 square feet of retail/commercial space, 14 Below Market Rate apartments, and 39 single-family residences. The project includes a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create condominium units. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. : Mr. Curtis Williams, Assistant Director: Thank you, Chair Holman and Commissioners. I would like to make a few brief comments in terms of the background of this project. Our presentation is in kind of four parts. I am going to talk a little bit about the background and history and process tonight. Beth Bourne is going to provide you with a project overview and indicate some of the information that you have received. Don Larldn, Senior Assistant City Attorney, will be indicating to you the options that are available to the Commission on this project. Then Steve Emslie, Director, will summarize the direction that we are looking for from the Commission. Tonight we also have available in the audience Cathy Siegel who is our Housing Planner and expert on the BMR program, Dennis Struecker who is our Traffic Consultant who has been reviewing this project, Dave Dockter, Arborist regarding any tree issues and Marlene Prendergast from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation also related to the BMR and housing issues. I think most of you are familiar the site has had a series of proposals for development over the last 15 plus years. Most recently last year the present applicant came forward with a proposal that was reviewed in April by the Commission as a preliminary application. The Commission made a number of suggestions and recommendations to the City Council and at that time specifically requested in particular increases in the square footage of commercial and decreases in the housing units on the site as well as some other recommendations. The item moved forward to a prescreening at the City Council. The Council had a study session and didn’t provide a specific recommendation but did provide input on a variety of issues before them and the applicant indicated they would go back, revise the plans, and come back to Staff and the Commission with a formal application. That has been done and that is what is before you tonight as the beginning of the Planned Community development process for this project. The process we anticipate tonight is that after the Staff presentation is complete the Cormnission will ask questions to clarify some items and then open up the public hearing and hear from the applicant and the public. Then we will come back to the Commission and take your comments and deliberations on the project. With that I would like to turn it over to Beth Bourne who will provide an overview of the project for you. Page 1 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. Beth Bourne, Senior Pla]mer: Good evening Chair Holman and members of the Commission. The proposal before you this evening is for the development of a 4.2-acre site with approximately 24,000 square feet of commercial retail and 53 housing units, 39 would be single family units at market rate and 14 would be Below Market Rate units. The mixed use retail building would be placed towards Alma Street with rental housing located on the second floor and parking below in the garage. The small lot single family detached housing would be located towards the rear half of the property. Vehicular access would be from Alma Street with a pedestrian connection to Ramona Street proposed. The applicant is proposing that a nonprofit housing organization operate the 14 rental units and that the community room be available to the tenants of the BMR units as well as the Pacific Art League. The three most significant changes to the proposal since your earlier review include the following. First there was an increase in the amount of retail from 19,200 to 24,000 square feet, which includes a smaller retail building of 1,860 square feet that would be used for commercial and neighborhood office. The number of single family residences was reduced from 45 to 39 units. In the Staff Report there is an incorrect figure. It shows the square footages as 1,690 to 2,150 square feet and the actual number for the newly proposed 39 homes would be 1,800 square feet to approximately 2,400 square feet. This figure is correct in the Land Use Parameters in Attachment A. I would also like to point out that that figure does not include the square footage in the garages. The third thing is the number of proposed parking spaces was increased by 53 spaces. The proposed project is subject to the Environmental Review provisions under the California Environmental Quality Act. An Environmental Assessment and initial study was prepared for the project. Based upon the study it was determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment with the proposed mitigation measures included. These mitigation measures involve protection of the trees on the site and mitigation for noise impacts. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review between February 16, 2007 to March 7, 2007. I would like to make a few comments about the materials you received to date. There have been three supplemental documents that you have received. One is the Lucky Deed Restriction from the applicant. Also there were responses to comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis and also a comparison table that was provided to you comparing the previous CN mixed use zone and the current CN mixed use zone. These documents have also been provided for the public on the table as you enter the Chambers. I would also like to add one clarifying note. In your Staff Report there is a list of the attachments. You will note that three of the attachments were prepared by the applicant and not by Staff. These attachments are Attachment B, the applicant’s Development Program Statement and Project Description, Attachment J, the applicants LEED and Green Building Checklist, and finally Attachment K, which is the applicant’s Brief History of Alma Plaza. I think this concludes my presentation. Thank you. Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Assistant City Attorney: I just want to go over what the Commission’s options are in reviewing the project and I have narrowed it down to three basic options. The first is to recommend approval. If that is the action of the Commission the item would go to ARB for 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 review, return to the Commission, the Commission would then be able to forward that onto Council for a final determination, The second option is to recommend denial. The Commission can identify the deficiencies in the application or make recommended changes but that recommendation on denial would be forwarded directly to Council for further action. Then the third option is to recommend approval with conditions. If the conditions are accepted by the applicant it would be forwarded to the ARB with the changes and return to the Planning Commission for further review for compliance with those conditions and then it would be forwarded to the Council for final determination. If the Commission imposed conditions that the applicant didn’t accept then we have a bit of a limbo in our code. If those conditions were such that it was essentially a denial we would likely treat it as a denial and have that go directly back to Council. If it were conditions that were not tantamount to a denial the applicant would go to ARB and it would be the applicant’s discretion whether or not to make changes consistent with those conditions and than it would return to you but it wouldn’t have compliance with your conditions. You would then forward it onto Council with a recommendation. It is our recommendation that you not take that option because it gives you one less chance at seeing a revised project. If you wanted to place conditions I think the better bet is to either approve it with conditions that the applicant can accept or deny the project so that it goes to Council. That way when it does come back to you it will come back to you in a somewhat final form. Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: I just had a few brief comments to wrap up before we turn it over to the public hearing portion of the evening. I would just like to say a bit about some of the inherent land use issues that pertain to a Planned Community, or PC. The City has been in the business of issuing Planned Community zones for some time. In fact this is one of our earlier Planned Community zones approved by City Council in the late 1950’s. What is inherent about PCs is that it is essentially a customized zone. It has no inherent land use, it has no development standards, so essentially from a land use perspective it has a blanc canvas. In this case we have a blank canvas that is essentially being washed away because we are looking at an entirely new planned development application. One of the inherent difficulties in processing a PC, and to some extent the prescreening process is an attempt to deal with this, is that there is often not unanimity in the basic land use principles that are being put forward. In order to get the land use principles to the ultimate decision-maker, in this case it is the City Council and in all cases for land use the City Charter does provide the City Council with the ultimate decision-malting authority, a lot of effort and commitments and expense is put into the development of finalized plans. The basic land use questions are not asked until all that has transpired. What the City Attorney has indicated to you is that the code while not entirely explicit I believe firmly anticipates that when there is major disagreement on the land use issues that it is the Commission’s role as the advisor to the City Council on matters of land use to use its powers of negative recommendation or to get those issues to the City Council. The City Attorney I think very clearly indicated that should the Commission forward a negative recommendation that would go to the Council for their evaluation and ultimately decision on 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 what we hope to be the broad land use questions about how much retail, how much commercial land should be devoted, how much residential, what the look and feel of the development should be, how the transitions are handled, and how it is made to fit into the community. So without a direct process to seek that input essentially the options that the City Attorney laid out would form the best way to seek decision and discussion on the broader land use questions without getting into the details, which I think in this case if the major land use issues are not resolved would be pretty much an exercise in futility absent the broader discussion of the City’s intentions and land use objectives for this site. So we would really urge the Planning Commission tonight to focus on those broader land use questions of retail square footage and housing and how the two are integrated into this site as a way of taking this more incrementally and more logically to a conclusion that I firmly believe would result in the best ultimate land use decision for this changeover a very important site. Chair Holman: Thank you. Before we see if there are any clarifying questions from Commission members Author Keller has a comment to make for the record to make sure there is no misunderstanding. Commissioner Keller: Thank you Chair Holman. I just want to make clear that one of the people who is a member of the Friends of Alma Plaza, namely Marilyn Keller, is not my wife. My wife’s name is Marianna Grossman-Keller and last I checked with her earlier today she has not taken a public position on this particular project. So I am looking forward to participating in this discussion with the understanding that that is not a conflict of interest. Thank you. Chair Holman: So at this time are there any clarifying questions that Commissioners have on either a process or about the project? Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: The first question I have is a process question for the City Attorney. You said that if there is an approval with conditions that the applicant was willing to accept or not willing to accept, is that accept or not accept tonight, now? Procedurally how does that happen? Then the follow on question to that is you said that if the conditions were tantamount to denial, who makes that determination? Mr. Larkin: To a certain extent the onus is on the applicant. The applicant would not make that decision tonight. They would have to go back and look at that project depending on what the conditions are. If the Commission decided to completely redo the project then that would be something that would be tantamount to denial. If the Commission made the types of conditions that are normally placed on applications in any situation that probably wouldn’t be something we would consider to be tantamount to denial. There is no hard and fast rule because there is nothing in our code that talks about what happens if the Commission places conditions that would make the project infeasible but that is what we are talking about, conditions that would make the project infeasible. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Page 4 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 Garber: I am still not quite getting it. The Staff is recommending that we either approve or deny only or is it saying approve, deny, or approve with conditions only? Mr. Larkin: Approve, deny, or approve with conditions only with the caveat that the conditions have to be acceptable or within what would be considered reasonable to the applicant. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: We received at our places from Beth a summary of a table comparing Palo Alto neighborhood centers. The first one is Midtown Center and it appears to list just the block that Safeway is on but the Comprehensive Plan defines Midtown Center quite differently. There is actually a map in the Comp Plan as well as a description that includes all the Midtown area and it is a description saying the Midtown Neighborhood Center includes 25 different parcels, etc. So I have a hard time understanding why that segment, I understand that there are roadway, break-ways, breakups between segments of the center but the Comp Plan seems very clear on the definition of the Midtown Center. Then finally, a much more minor point, when Safeway expanded three or four years ago I believe the increased their grocery store size from the 19,000 that it folqnally was to the 20,000 today. So can we get a clarification on the definition of Midtown Center? You might look at page L-30 in the Comp Plan or page L-29. If you want to check that out before responding that is fine with me too. Ms. Bourne: We can look into that. Commissioner Burt: I have another question regarding the appropriateness of including the garage space in the calculation of the floor area of what are being proposed as eventually detached single family homes on parcels. I lcnow that the Staff Report from last April had said that a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide the parcels and create condominiums would be required for those at that time 45 detached homes. So if we are going to have a subdivision and it is going to look and feel like a subdivision and these are going to be detached lots my understanding is they would be sold off as individual substandard size detached lots with full size homes on them. Would we under those circumstances include garages as part of the floor area? Mr. Williams: The reason we typically don’t and we didn’t on for instance 3270 West Bayshore and some of the Hyatt site where they had the small lots like that. Those for the most part were not sold off, they were condominiums as opposed to being sold as fee lots because that is what the RM-15 and RM-30, the multi-family zones, basically don’t include garages and they were developed under the industrial, those are the underlying residential zones. So to some extent that would apply too if you looked at this as a mixed use under CN with the underlying zone being a residential, however, this is a PC so really there is no rule as far as how you count garages with a PC. So we should look at it both ways and we have looked at what the numbers would be if you did include the garage too and what FAR would result from that. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. 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 Commissioner Garber: So is part of our task this evening to look specifically at how the map is laid out and the placement of houses, etc., or is it to talk simply about the underlying use of the property? Mr. Williams: I think as Steve indicated our desire is really at this point to talk about the underlying uses, the mix of uses, overall intensity, key access, those bigger picture items. If the project moves forward there will be a much more detailed review of the development plan under the PC process which includes how those lots are - there may be some big picture issues as far as that layout goes that you certainly can address, you can address anything tonight but the focus is more on the mix of uses, intensities, that kind of thing. Commissioner Garber: Understood. So things like daylight planes, heights, etc. we would take up later. Mr. Williams: Yes, they will go through the ARB process and the development plan will come back to you then with a chance to look at hose details as well. Commissioner Garber: Thanks. ’ Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Yes, in terms of the Attaclmaent B that say Alma Plaza Development Program Statement, I guess that was made by the applicant so I am not sure if this question is appropriate to ask. It says South Palo Alto Design Guidelines and there are no page numbers here so it is hard to figure out. Then below it it says page ECR 9 and page ECR 8 the references in terms of South Palo Alto Design Guidelines but these appear to be for E1 Camino Real design. To what extent do the design guidelines specifically for E1 Camino Real apply to Alma Plaza or Alma Street or other locations in South Palo Alto in general? Mr. Williams: They don’t specifically apply tO Alma Plaza. They might be something for you to look at as a point of comparison in terms of what we are trying to achieve on E1 Camino Real but they do not specifically apply to Alma Plaza. Commissioner Keller: To what extent does the corridor specific 30-foot setback on Alma Street apply to the project in general? Ms. Bourne: Alma Street does have a special street setback of 30 feet and that is for an arterial in the city having a 30-foot special setback. So any encroachment within that special setback would require a variance. Commissioner Keller: So that is the thing that controls in this particular situation is that 30-foot setback for this particular parcel. Also, I notice that in terms of the minimum mixed use ground floor the figure of 1,820. I think that that was actually an estimate that may have come from me. I am wondering that assumes that the attached building, the ground floor is actually retail. I am 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 wondering if in a separate building whether the ground floor will be retail or not. I am not sure what the proposal states with respect to that whether that is counted or not. Ms. Bourne: The applicant has stated that the separate retail building would be for neighborhood commercial or neighborhood office space and they did include it in their total of the 24,000. Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. Chair I-Iolman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: Thank you. This question is also a clarifying question for Staff and it is back to process. I understand, Steve, what you said that we really need to look at the underlying land use issues but in reviewing the minutes of our last meeting about this in April I thought that is what we did. So I want to find out what is different about tonight. I look at the motion that we voted on and I see a very clear directive from the Planning Commission, a very clear recommendation for the use of this land, so pardon me for not lcnowing procedure properly but I am wondering what is different about tonight than last April. Mr. Emslie: You are not the decision-maker, you can’t provide direction and your recommendations are to Council. The prescreening process is voluntary and it is non-binding so it doesn’t have any force of law, it is not requirements, and frankly there was some dissidence between the Commission’s thoughts and the Council. So this is the now the formal process. We have now got to a place where there is a way to make your communications to the Council and have the Council make a binding decision on what it expects to see with that. So there is a major difference between the prescreening and tonight’s proceedings. Commissioner Sandas: Good, thanks. I dared used the word ’directive’ and I know that that was the wrong word to use, recommendation. Anyway, thanks. Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: One minor question. In Attachment B, in the applicant’s section B of that it talks about the public benefits but the word ’blighted’ is used there and the word ’blighted’ is used in a number of correspondences that I have received from the public. I understand that the word ’blighted’ really actually has some legal implications associated with it which come under Powers of Condemnation. Is this truly a blighted site or just an eyesore? Mr. Larldn: Well, don’t even need to reach that because in order for us to make a blight determination we have to demonstrate that there isn’t a willing developer to redevelop the property, a willing private developer to redevelop the property. Obviously there is a private developer who is willing to redevelop the property because you have an application. So the word ’blight’ may have different meanings to some as a term of ours it doesn’t meet that definition but I am sure it has meaning to many people outside of the legal definition. Vice-Chair Lippert: But legally it has a definition and it doesn’t meet that definition. Page 7 1 Mr. Larkin: Legally we would not be able to condemn this property. 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 Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma, do you have a clarifying question? Commissioner Tuma: Yes, it has to do with the in lieu fee for the BMRs. The applicant has said in their application that they calculated it at $3.5 million is that consistent with what Staff believes it would be, and if so, can you tell us how that was be calculated? Mr. Williams: Cathy Siegel will respond. Ms. Cathy Siegel, Housing Planner: I haven’t actually calculated what an in lieu fee would be. I don’t really have a good idea at this point as to what the market value of the town homes or these single family homes would be. The in lieu fee formula when a project has a 15 percent BMR requirement as the town homes would is that the fee percentage is half of the BMR requirement percentage. So for a 15 percent BMR requirement the in lieu fee rate would be 7.5 percent and that 7.5 percent would be applied to the market sales price of all of those homes in the development. So I don’t know if these are $1.5 million homes or $1.0 million homes or what they are at this point. They are fairly good size homes and they are completely detached even though the lots are small. Commissioner Tuma: So it would be 7.5 percent of the fair market value of what is being proposed here, the 39 single family homes. Ms. Siegel: Yes, that would be if we accepted an in lieu fee. Our normal practice would be not to accept an in lieu fee but to require the six BMR units in those homes. So since the proposed project is relieving Greenbriar of providing those six BMR units personally I would look more at how are they going to benefit financially from not having to provide tho~e units. Basically it would be the market value of those six units compared to the BMR sales prices and that is a larger number than the number listed as that in lieu fee in the applicant’s statement. Commissioner Tuma: Thank you. Chair Holman: Cathy, I think there is a follow up from Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I have a question about if we have 39 single family residence type units and 15 percent of that is I guess six. What I am wondering is if somebody had a 39 unit project and they say they are going to provide six BMRs does that mean they build 45 units or if 45 units are built do they have to provide 15 percent of 45? Ms. Siegel: No, the 15 percent is applied to the number of units that the developer is building and then out of those units they would provide their 15 percent. So if they want to add more units to their project, if they decide they were going to build 45 homes then the number of BMR units goes up. So it is a percentage of what they actually are developing. 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: So in this case they are developing 53 units of which 14 are of one kind and 39 of another. Ms. Siegel: The apartments weren’t proposed as market rate apartments. They were proposed as the BMR solution. So in that case we are not applying a 15 percent requirement to those apartments. Those 14 apartments are proposed instead of the six units. If we said no we don’t want to deal with this 14 rental units they wouldn’t build them. They would just build their retail building. Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Garber, is it follow up? Commissioner Garber: Sorry, Cathy. So if an in lieu fee was not necessarily the City’s first choice for those BMR units how would the City or Staff begin to think about trying to find that 15 percent? Would it look specifically to find those BMR units within the single family homes or is in fact doing them as apartments a reasonable way to think about them? Ms. Siegel: Well the text of the BMR program is found in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, it is Program H-36. It does have a clause in there that states a list of standard ways of complying with the BMR’ Program. The first most often used way of complying is a fully inclusive BMR housing component where the BMR units are in the market rate units, they are like them, they are scattered throughout the market rate housing and they reflect the types of floor plans and unit types that are built. That is the normal way that it is done and that is how it has generally been done historically and in most recent projects. There is a provision for in lieu fees, there are provisions for land dedication as other alternatives. Then there is kind of a clause that has always been in the program even in earlier Housing Elements that says other equivalent alternatives that are acceptable to the City. So to do something like the 14 apartments that is allowed under the program. We should be getting more affordable housing in some way in terms of number of units, deeper affordability, affordable rental housing is very hard to get in Palo Alto because developers generally just don’t build it at all. So to deviate from the normal standard way we need to be getting something desirable that is worth doing something different but it is definitely allowed under the program and things have been done in the past not quite like this but similar. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Hohnan: Commissioner Burt, did you have a question? If it is a clarifying question great. I would like to get to the applicant and the public. So if you want to go ahead and ask your question but then if there is nothing else burning I would like to get to the applicant. Commissioner Burt: Yes. This goes somewhat as follow up to the last couple of questions. The Staff Report alludes to Attachment B under the public benefits for the project and that is the applicant’s assertion of public benefits. So I have two parts to my question. One is has Staff done any independent evaluation of their own of what they consider to be public benefits? I think typically we have had Staff filter through an applicant’s assertion on public benefits and 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 given their own interpretation of what constitutes a benefit. Then more specifically on the one that was just discussed that is one of the primary benefits claimed by the applicant and so if the square footage - we can’t compare units because they are not the equivalent units. So the applicant chose to offer smaller apartment-like units and that is a separate issue and I don’t necessarily have any problems with that, but in terms of how we compare it if there is a 15 percent requirement it doesn’t look like the square footage of the BMR units constitute 15 percent of the square footage of the market rate units. Yet the applicant is calling it a public benefit when I am not sure that they are meeting the mandated requirement. So can you comment on those two aspects of my question? Mr. Williams: I would say first of all I know we have not taken a specific position on the public benefits. There are some in here like the community room and perhaps the park area if that is above and beyond the requirements that we would normally have that sound to us like they may qualify. Others as far as redeveloping a blighted site kind of thing I think are difficult to support from our standpoint. As far as the BMR units go I think that is sort of on the table because we haven’t done exactly as Cathy was indicating and come to conclusion of whether they are providing more than what is really required by the BMR program. So to the extent that our determination ultimately is that that is happening then that could qualify as a public benefit to the extent that all it is doing is complying with the BMR program we already would require them and it wouldn’t be a public benefit. So we still need to make that determination. Mr. Emslie: Just a real quick add-on. We would also factor in not just the square footage but the differences in the rent subsidy versus the ownership. Our program is higher income levels for the ownership program and can go to the 120 percent of the county median whereas the rental income levels that these have to be targeted for are lower. I think it is at the 80 percent level. So that is factored in, the amount of subsidy, and then quite frankly I think we have a preference for rental housing not only because it is difficult to come by, we haven’t added to it for some time, and we believe that it gives an opportunity to subsidize deeper and provide essentially better oversight and have more turnover for housing so that we can continue to cycle and hopefully move people into ownership housing after they have gotten established in an affordable unit. Commissioner Burt: Just to clarify, my concern over the BMR isn’t over the type. I concur that there may be advantages to having the smaller rental units serving more people in need and that is a separate policy decision. It is just how much of it and the equivalent value is the question. Chair Holman: Okay. Seeing no other questions I will go to the applicant and our agenda says 15 minutes and I think it is probably likely that 20 is more likely to be a better presentation for our purposes. At this point in time I have 25 cards from the members of the public and with that number of cards we will have five minutes for each member of the public. I see a couple more coming in. Mr. McNellis ifI could get you to fill out a card for the Secretary that would be great. Also I have a card from Jim Baer, I am presuming that - okay, Mr. Baer is speaking on his own. Okay. Mr. McNellis. Mr. John McNellis, Applicant: Good evening Commissioners. I am John McNellis here on behalf of McNellis Partners and Greenbriar Homes. Because of time limitations I think I actually can do this in 15 minutes I am only going to hit our project’s major points but our 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 experts are here to answer your questions. Of course if you have any questions please feel free to interrupt meat any time. We are located a couple of blocks from here ina little house on Waverley, we don’t have a web site, we don’t even have our name on the door, but we have done a fair bit of business over the last few years. Along the way we have learned a thing or two and one of the things I have learned is that on an evening like this it is a real good idea to start out with something everybody can agree upon. This was a straggle to come up with something but I think I have found it. I think we can all agree that it would be a good idea to skip Alma Plaza’s long troubled history. So we are going to. Instead of that we are going to focus on where we have come over the last two years and where we are today. There is one fact from the past however that bears repeating. In fact it bears stressing because it is not going to go away. Alma Plaza is a mediocre retail site that only worked in the distant past because of a lack of competition. Over the many years of its long troubled history you, the City, had your own independent retail expert after retail expert study it and they all came to the same conclusion. That it is an inferior retail site. The problems are obvious. It is a narrow, deep parcel, it is not on the comer, it doesn’t have a signal, it has only one main entrance, and the buildings on either side substantially obstruct its visibility. Also, the train tracks effectively cut it off from about half of its natural trade area. Finally, with the 50 mile an hour speed on Alma it is not so convenient to get into what should be a convenient center. Chair Holman: Excuse me, everybody has a right to speak and please don’t interrupt speakers with comments. I don’t think you would want that happening to you so please be respectful. Mr. McNellis: Thank you. The Friends of Alma Plaza issued a press release a couple of days ago about Alma’s retail viability based on a technical sales forecast report that they obtained from Mapinfo a respected industry consultant. Mapinfo repudiated the Friend’s press release in a letter today, which I understand you have all received. While the Mapinfo Report adds nothing to our understanding and the supermarket industry’s understanding about Alma Plaza I would be happy to answer any questions about it that you may have. We understood retail was highly problematic when we purchased this site two years ago. So we proposed a small center, a little under 11,000 feet and 51 homes. We took this plan to the neighborhood, to the community leaders, to the Council Members, to your Staff, and we realized that to despite its land use merits it was simply politically unacceptable. So we came before you last year with this plan instead, 19,000 feet of retail, 46 homes, almost doubling the retail and reducing the housing by 10 percent. A majority of the Council was pleased with this plan telling us that at last we were close to a project they could embrace, very close, but of course they had to tweak it. In fact the Council had a number of specific recommendations. What the Council requested last year was a little more retail, a little less housing, a sense of place, public gathering areas, superior design, and more parking. After the meeting we talked about it, we met with Council Members, we met with Staff and others, and we decided to come up with a little more retail, a little less housing, a sense of place, public gathering areas, superior design, and more parking. 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 To help with that superior design I would like to say that we brought on Palo Alto’s favorite architect, Ken Hayes, and Ken has come up with a really stunning design for our market building. What you have before you then is the culmination of nearly a year’s efforts of hard work by the development team to come up with a plan that both addresses the Council’s concerns and still works for everyone. We have increased our retail from 19,000 to 24,000 feet, decreased our residential by another six homes, in their place we have added that gathering spot that the Council asked for, a 9,000 foot public park. Now this park is going to serve as the focal point of our project. It will be the first thing one sees upon entering the project from Alma Street, it will be the nexus between our residential and retail components, and it will also serve as a nice benefit to the Stanford Villa Apartments. Now adding this little park helped us quite a bit with another Council concern and that is parking. With the new parking around it we now have 96 parldng spaces on this site devoted to the retail which is exactly in accordance with code and frankly, unless someone like Trader Joe’s were to come along or some tremendously heavy user, it is probably more parldng than we really need. While we are on the subject of parking I passed out to you a memento from five years ago, Pat will remember it he was here. The Stanford Villa Apartments have no parking rights over our property. They never have. This objection has been raised repeatedly and frankly, it was put to bed five years ago by your Staff and the City Attorney. I handed you the relevant page from the November 2002 Staff Report, which concludes, "Alma Plaza has no agreement or obligation to provide parking for the Stanford Villa Apartments." How far have we come in the last two years? The retail area is two and a half times bigger than we first proposed. We decreased the homes by 24 percents. We have added a public park. We have added a gathering area. We have added a community room and we have added 14 BMR apartments. On top of all that the really great news is the project is going to be simply gorgeous. It is going to be the best-looking retail building I guarantee you in Palo Alto. This slide doesn’t really do it justice, the Hayes Group’s design. Do we have the materials board for you to see? Hopefully each of the Commissioners had a chance to see the materials that we are proposing. From it you will note that the building is going to have a rustic Italian, smooth stucco finish, gently arching windows, and in place of the traditional aluminum we are going to have real wood doors and wooden window systems. The restaurant that Ken designed on University Avenue, La Strada, would give you a good sense of the plaster and wood look that we are going to achieve at Alma. This perspective, it washes out a little bit but, this one is a truer sense of the building color that we are proposing, and it also gives you a good idea of the landscape design that we are going to be proposing. Of course it is from the new park looking out toward Alma, looking at the comer of our Market Building. This is a driver southbound on Alma perspective. It nicely shows you the contrasting color palette between the first floor retail and the second floor apartment. Again it washes out but it also shows you our lavender crepe myrtles. Now turning inside the building, in speaking to all of these small markets we came up with one name repeatedly and that was John Sudi & Associates who turns out to be the Bay Area’s Page 12 1 leading small market designer. We asked him to layout a prototypical market for us. This one 2 between the first floor and the basement is just under 19,000 feet and it has absolutely everything 3 I can think of in it except maybe a bank. It has fresh produce, dry goods, a butcher shop, deli, 4 seafood, and even a separate cheese area. It has five checkout stands. Adjacent to the right the 5 two small shops, the one on the lower corner, which would be inside is marked as a caf~ and the 6 other is a dry cleaners. In addition to the market/cafd/dry cleaners we are likely to attract typical 7 users for a small neighborhood center. A post office clone or annex, a bank, beauty shop, nails, 8 tenants like that. 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 Now we are proposing 12 one-bedroom apartments ranging in size from 700 to 900 feet and two two-bedroom apartments between 1,000 and 1,200 feet. Each of these apartments will have a private balcony. The 14 apartments will have 22 dedicated parking spaces for them in the basement. The community room is located in the lower right hand corner of the plan. It is about 1,300 feet, which is, if memory serves, about twice the size of a public school classroom. As you have heard we intend to make it available to both the apartment dwellers and outside community groups such as the Pacific Art League under the auspices of Parks & Recreation. Turning now to our residential component we are proposing 39 homes with six distinct floor plans ranging in size from 1,800 to 2,400 feet all with state of the art green features. The homes would be two and two and a half stories with a predominance of the lower two story buildings along the Ramona and Emerson edges and conversely the taller buildings, the bulk of them, near the Stanford Villa Apartments. The idea being that then we create a nice transition from the taller apartment building down to the single story homes on our southern edge. The streetscape elevations will show you why we picked Greenbriar Homes as our partner. The homes are highly individualized. Some have wood shingle exteriors, other stucco, still others clabbered or clapboard depending on who you talk to. Here is another lovely perspective. This project I think from almost the first day that a falnily moves in here is going to be seen as a comfortable architecturally diverse neighborhood. Our sense is really that the quality of the homes and Greenbriar’s widely admired attention to detail are not at issue here tonight. So we are going to return to focus on the project as a whole and address its public benefits. Alma Plaza’s benefits will not only help the immediate neighbors but I think it is fair to say the city as whole. I am going to focus on just three Of these. First, short and sweet, our Market Building is going to be the most environmentally sensitive or advanced retail building on the peninsula. It is going to be designed for LEED Silver Standard and Ken Hayes is here to answer any green questions you might have about that. Second, instead of the six homes that were originally in this location we are going to build a small neighborhood park and dedicate it to the city. This park will truly be large enough to be a real public gathering spot. Third, since you had questions about this, and I am glad because I can walk you through the map, I can walk through our understanding of the obligations, and this frankly is a culmination - one reason it has taken us ten months to get back here is that there was a lot of back and forth about what the City wanted and how extraordinary this benefit needed to be. We are going to build and deliver to the Page 13 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 Palo Alto Housing Corporation 14 first-rate BMR apartments at our cost of just under $6.5 million. Back to the question you had earlier, Mr. Tuma, it is 7.5 percent if you assume as we do that the Greenbriar Homes will sell for roughly $1.2 million, multiply that by 39, and take 7.5 percent of that and I believe that number should be $3.5 million. So the code would be if we were paying an in lieu fee the obligation would be $3.5 million. So hopefully we will have consensus that this is truly a wonderful benefit. The difference between our obligation under the code and what the City has asked us to do to build these apartments is nearly $3.0 million. Now the obvious solution to solving that gap is to build fewer apartments but as much as I like seeing you guys after 20 years I would really like to bring this to closure so we are trying to get this done. We are going to offer to build these apartments, pay this additional cost in the hopes of getting this project approved. Frankly, we understand that a benefit of this magnitude, nearly $3.0 million is without precedent even in projects far larger than little Alma Plaza. Now, it is worth pointing out to a lot of people here that you don’t have to trust us on this, $6,454,000 divided by 14 comes out to a per unit cost of $461,000. It just so happens that two intentionally non-profit groups Bridge Senior Housing and Eden 801 Alma are now proposing low-income projects and their reported delivery costs are $421,000 and $452,000 respectively. So that puts us all in the same expensive neighborhood. By delivering these apartments, finished, free and clear to the Housing Corporation, by making this gift the City will not only get 14 units added to its low income housing stock but the Housing Corporation would net nearly $90,000 a year. That $90,000 could be used for the debt service on a $1.5 million purchase of another building or it could be used for a lot of good things. The final BMR point is we are going to be worldng with the school district and the Housing Opportunities for Teachers to ensure as many of our apartments as possible are leased, to new young schoolteachers coming into the school district. That, spealdng of short and sweet, is really all we have to say. We would love to answer questions. It seems like you have quite a few. I might be able to be of help. I would be happy to sit down. Chair Holman: Thank you very much, Mr. McNellis. Do Commissioners have questions for the applicant at this time? Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: Thank you. I just have one question at this time and it is related to the park. We have received a letter from somebody who had expressed concern that the park was going to be maintained by the residents who lived in the new community. So my question is since you are deeding the park to the City who will be responsible for the maintenance of the park? Is it in fact the City or is it in fact the condo homeowners association? Mr. McNellis: It is the condo homeowners association that would be responsible for the maintenance. I think the City doesn’t mind getting things deeded if it doesn’t cost them anything. Commissioner Sandas: Thanks. Page 14 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 Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I have a series of questions for you about the houses themselves. You said in your statement that they range from 1,800 to 2,400 square feet each, correct? Mr. McNellis: That is fight. I am just the residential builder here so I am going to ask my housing partner. Chair Holman: If I might just remind Commissioners that if it is pertinent to the larger land use questions then great, otherwise let’s leave them to another time. Commissioner Tuma: It is. Mr. McNellis: This is Don Ruthroff our housing architect. Commissioner Tuma: The first question is pretty straightforward. As I look at the plans is it fair to say that the average garage that is going to go with these houses is approximately 500 square feet? Mr. Don Ruthroff, Housing Architect: It is approximately 465 square feet. Commissioner Tuma: So that would bring the structures that are the single family residences up to 2,200 to 2,900 square feet approximately? Mr. Don Ruthroff: Yes. I’m doing the math in my head but yes that is the general magnitude. Commissioner Tuma: Okay. It is also the case that the vast majority of these lots are under 2,000 square feet? Mr. Ruthroff: Yes. Commissioner Tuma: Okay, that’s it for now. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: I am not sure which of the representatives of the applicant would be best to answer this. Part of the basis for the BMR calculation was a Valuation of these homes. You said anticipated market value of $1.2 million each. So I had likewise done a little bit of math according to how we normally calculate floor area including garages and it looks like around 2,650 square feet on average per home. Are you familiar with the range of housing prices per square foot in Palo Alto over the last several years and how this compares? Mr. McNellis: Actually, Pat, as you know I am not a housing expert. I think the homes, and fortunately we have many neighbors here all in wild support of the project I am sure, I think the homes sell in the $800,000 to $1.0 million range in the immediate are of Alma Plaza. So I think Page 15 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 the $1.2 million is pushing it slightly but maybe someone else from Greenbriar wants to address that but that is not my expertise. Commissioner Burt: Maybe Staff subsequently can give us some statistics on average selling prices in neighborhoods in Palo Alto per square feet. I have seen them published and your statistics are very off from what my recollection is. Mr. McNellis: Here is some easy math for you as well. Pick a ridiculous number, pick $1.5 million, add another $300,000, multiply that by 39 and then take 7.5 percent of that. So this $3.0 million contribution maybe goes down to two or three. I have done that math anticipating this. It maybe goes down to $2.6 million 0r $2.5 million but it is still an extraordinary number. Then the other thing that offsets that as well, Pat, is that construction costs continue to rise. These are estimates from last fall. We are the ones that will be totally exposed to that. So yes, housing prices could go back up, but they are not going to go up enough to lnake a serious dent in what is assuming, again this is a policy issue. This wasn’t our idea. It would be much simpler for us to do the six houses but we happen to agree from a policy issue from what is the right thing for the city that providing low income housing in apartments is better than six houses is one of the reasons that we have endorsed this. If the policy issue goes the other way it is much, much easier for us. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: You have broken the site into five parcels. Could you just walk through briefly the logic behind them? I am thinking specifically of why for instance Parcel D has been separated out and Parcel B has been separated out. Parcel D being the small retail building and Parcel B being the street. Mr. McNellis: Good question. I can’t answer all of that. The small retail building is likely to prove unprofitable to us. It is very likely to prove unprofitable so one way that we may come out a little better on that is to be able to sell it to a user. Someone else asked that question before. We are thinking of retail just like the building next to us, which is a medical building, and in fact Kurt Reitman is here. Maybe it is a dentist, maybe it is an accountant that building can be terrible for true retail but for retail services it will be fine. So that was the thinking behind that one, as way to staunch what I am afraid will be bleeding on that. The others, there is one parcel for the park because we need to dedicate it so that’s two. There is our big parcel for the Market Building that’s three. There is the large parcel that needs to be subdivided for the 39 homes that’s four. Then there is a mystery parcel. Commissioner Garber: It is B, which is the street. Mr. McNellis: The street. Commissioner Garber: I just curious why that is not included with for instance the residential parcel. 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. McNellis: Our engineers are here and given enough time they will come up with a cogent answer. Chair Holman: IfI might, because there are questions, if the team could all sit in the front row so we don’t have a lot of time spent going back and forth it would be really helpful especially since we have so many speakers. Thank you. Mr. Todd Adair, BKF Engineers: Parcel B is just a private street parcel. It could be put into the adj acent residential units as well. It could be done either way. Commissioner Garber: I am not expressing a preference I am just asking the question why it was separated out. Mr. Adair: Mostly just because of the layout. We could make side yards larger on those private residential units if that’s a preference. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The first of all think you for providing a copy of the report that indicates the requirement for an 18,000 square foot or less grocery store. Looking at that document I notice that there are terms and provisions contained in the document regarding agreement of ingress and egress recorded July 9, 1957 and also a reciprocal easement agreement recorded August 22, 1997. Could you identify what those are, please? Mr. McNellis: Sure. The reciprocal easement agreement in 1997, you have to go back a little bit. The partnership that has owned the Stanford Villa Apartments has owned it for cons. They also owned the shop buildings that are part of the project. This goes back to before I got involved, but the early 1990s, so the Stanford Villa people came into redevelop just those shop buildings. They were shot down by your predecessors and correctly. The Planning Commission at that time said you need to redevelop the parcel as a whole, you need to bring in Lucky’s. So what happened as a result of that is they started talking. They weren’t interested in talcing this on. Lucky’s ended up buying them out. I originally started on this deal in 1994, it is amazing. Lucky’s bought out the shop buildings from the fellows who owned the apartments. So the road between us, we own about one-third of it, the third closest to the street, and they own the back two-thirds and there is a joint access easement over it. That date in 1997 is the date that Lucky’s bought the shops from the Stanford Villa Apartments. That may have caused some of the confusion years ago about this parldng, which doesn’t exist. Commissioner Keller: With respect to the 1957 one, the ingress and egress? Mr. McNellis: There is a small ingress/egress easement in favor ofKurt Reitman and the medical building and that is probably it if it is on the south side. I can forward that to you as well. Page 17 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 Keller: Thank you. I remember at one of the earlier hearings Mr. Reitman referred to there being a requirement for ten parking spaces provided on your side as an easement as well. I am wondering if that is part of it or if you are aware of that. Mr. McNellis: Well, I would love to speak for Mr. Reitman but since he is here I probably shouldn’t. He will speak later. The only legal document we have between us is an ingress/egress easement. I am confident we will work things out with Mr. Reitman and his partners. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I figured I would give you an opportunity to respond to that before he gave his thoughts. Mr. McNellis: Thank you. Commissioner Keller: If I can ask one more question as regards the issue of 24,000 square feet of retail/commercial building space. So that is 17,300 of ground floor retail in the main building, right? There is 3,507 square feet of basement office so you are counting the basement office storage and service in the basement as part of your 20,000 square feet. Mr. McNeliis: That is absolutely right. Commissioner Keller: The 1,330 square foot community room, which is being given to the residents and the Pacific Art League among other uses, is being counted as commercial space? Mr. McNellis: Yes. In other words, if we had not done that, if that were not a public benefit we could lease that out to you or to any of you for office space. In other words it is the same kind of use as we are going to put in the little building across the way. Commissioner Keller: The little building across the way is 1,863 and I was the one I think who came up with the number 1,820 overall for ground floor retail because I couldn’t figure out how much of the 1,863 was on the ground floor and how much of it was on the second floor. So I just took a guess of about half. Mr. McNellis: I will buy it. He says it is about half. It is close enough for now. That is about right. Roughly it adds up oddly enough to 24,000 feet. Commissioner Keller: So is the estimate that I came up with which I believe Staff adopted of about 18,250 for the ground floor retail, does that seem about right to you? Mr. McNellis: It is either 17,300, I can’t do this in my head. Commissioner Keller: Yes, 17,300 plus half of the 1,863 is that right? Mr. McNellis: That sounds right. Commissioner Keller: All right, thank you. 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Mr. McNellis, you had referred to these spaces as being comparatively poor as a retail location, I believe. Mr. McNellis: Absolutely. Commissioner Burt: So can you clarify for me, as you mention I have been through this for a long while and digging through my files I came across a handout you had given out and discussed at a community meeting I think it was in the spring of 1999. The fourth bullet point says, Alma Plaza is an ideal location for a new supermarket. Then it goes onto say that despite its sad condition the center is ideally situated to serve greater Palo Alto located on Alma Street, one of the city’s busiest north-south arterials and is easily accessible to all of Palo Alto. So can you explain how that jives with your other more recent characterizations? Mr. McNellis: Now, Pat, remember last year when Jim brought out all the things you said? Yes, I can explain that actually. What we were proposing then, I don’t remember which year it was but we were proposing a 45,000-foot market with a signal. If it had a signal, which we Lucky’s, spent $50,000 on with Ashook and Transportation and we just vetted that to the inth degree and realized we could not get a signal. But if there were a signal there that solved the entry problem and if you had a 45,000-foot market there in a town where all the other stores are 20,000 to 22,000 feet it would be fabulous. If you guys said today, "John, put a target there of 100,000 feet on three stories and a signal," the site will work. It has good traffic. But given where we are today and given the restrictions, Pat, no it is not a.good retail site. You could overcome with a big market and with a signal you could overcome its inherent weaknesses but otherwise you can’t. Commissioner Burt: Okay. We received a number of letters in support of your project that have virtually identical phrasing in numerous places throughout them. Mr. McNellis: People think Mike. Commissioner Burt: So either it is a statistical phenomena or some other explanation. My question is if we have questions about the content of that should we address them to you or Mr. Baer or the individual signees of them? Mr. McNellis: If you are questioning their desire to see this thing finally get approved I think you should talk to the individual signees. Commissioner Burt: That is not my question. So if I am questioning the repeated assertions that are virtually identical phrasing and one actually had a label at the top that someone neglected to omit that said, ’form letter.’ So for the purpose of expediency if we have questions about the content and the assertions that are made repeatedly should we direct them to you or Mr. Baer or to the individual signees? Page 19 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. McNellis: Any of the three would work. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: One last question. I am wondering if you have any comments about the justification for building the Market Building to what appears to be the lot line in contrast to the 30-foot setback that is standard for Alma Street. Mr. McNellis: Thank you very much for asking. I am glad you asked that question. The reason we are doing that is because this site has terrible visibility. The medical building is right up on the street on the one side and Stanford Villa blocks it on the other. I really want the retail that we build here to succeed so by putting it right up on the street, by putting signage on the building as you saw, that is our best chance to have the building act as an advertisement. Ken and I did the Anthropology Building. That building becomes very, very visible. Think about right on Alma as well. That project worked out great, people see it and they stop there. That is what I am trying to do. So yes, we absolutely need - if you push that building back 30 feet it is going to really hurt us. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. This won’t be your only opportunity to ask applicant questions. Commissioner Tuma: John, the 14 BMR units indicates in the papers that those would be leased to the City for 59 years at no cost. What happens at the end of the 59 years? Mr. McNellis: Good question. Charices are the building is worn out by then. Buildings like this, well just look at this project. It was built in the early 1960s, its 50 years old. So chances are the building goes down but if somehow this building stood the test of time, it was a pyramid, then the lease would expire and whoever the owner is at that point it would go to that owner. I guess 59-year leases, and I am sure Steve will jump in here and back me up because it wasn’t my idea it is a standard with the City of Palo Alto. Commissioner Tuma: Okay, but I just wanted to be clear that those weren’t being deeded to the City they would revert back to the owner. Mr. McNellis: Yes. In other words, what we are proposing is an absolute free lease. The only thing that the Housing Corporation would pay would be the janitorial, the lights, and the shared maintenance for the whole 59 years. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. I appreciate your gathering up here to lead to more efficiency. I have a question for Staff. Given that we have Marlene Prendergast here, she is not a Staff member and I don’t know what her schedule is, if there are questions for her should we direct those earlier rather than later? I also want to get to the public so how should we manage that? 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 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Emslie: Marlene Prendergast and the Housing Corporation are on contract with the City to advise the City on matters of housing so they do have a consulting relationship with us. So if you did want to ask her questions or hear a presentation as a part of the Staff presentation that would be appropriate. Chair Holman: So to put you on the spot, do you have a presentation to make or would you just like to be available for questions? Okay. I guess what we should do then is have you fill out a card. Very good. There seems to be interest in taking you out of order and taking you earlier rather than later. It might help inform some of the other comments that we hear. So if you would like to come up and make your comments we will find your card. Thank you. Ms. Marlene Prendergast, Palo Alto Housing Corporation: I am Executive Director of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. I think our main point, and I am speaking basically for our Board and our whole organization, is that we think the idea of sort of an alternative BMR solution is a good idea. Generally whenever there is single family type houses that are pretty expensive and if they were sold in the normal manner to BMR applicants they would be - I don’t know they were suggesting $1.2 million for these houses, the BMR price might be around $300,000 which for an old timer like me sounds like a lot for a BMR unit but nevertheless that is an enormous subsidy for that one family and it basically gone forever. There may be re-sales over time but it is a limited amount of people that it subsidizes so that an alternative solution of rental units however that can be worked out is usually at a lower income level and it goes to more households and over time there is more turnover and serves more households in the rental capacity. I thought I would just real quickly say what our normal role is and why we are here at all for those you who may not know. We do have a consulting contract with the City to sort of administer certain parts of the BMR program. We do sometimes assist in determining policy about an appropriate BMR solution. So if something is just 15 percent of a number of units that is math and that is not difficult, and we don’t necessarily get involved in those. We also administer the waiting list of folks waiting for BMR units and then we determine their eligibility at the time that there is a sale of a unit. This is the homeownership. Then we conduct the sales process in the resale especially and get them into the unit. In the rental program we normally just monitor the waiting list that is kept at the individual properties. Historically the rental program has been small so it is developed a little bit by bit and we then determine the eligibility of the people that are allowed in in terms of the manager of the apartment buildings. That sometimes presents - I mean if the owner of the apartment building is not really so keen on BMR they sometimes can do things without our knowledge and that is a little problematic. If the situation is like Stanford West where they have a professional management company who has done BMR before we check files every now and again and we find the files are fine and they do a report each year. So it is all over the place as far as rental is concerned. In usual situations our Board tends to advise on appropriate BMR solutions to try new things, sometimes they work, sometimes we are not sure until later, but there have been various examples of this. For example, long ago Palo Alto Commons, an assisted living facility and we felt that was just a little hard to administer in the typical rental BMR situation. So we took a Page 21 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 sack of money from that developer and subsidized a few people into that complex and that became kind of more work than it was worth. Now we have Sunrise Homes a totally different thing and we are getting actual rental units in the assisted living. So just historically the Hamilton you recall the very luxurious sort of senior building on Hamilton and Middlefield. Again, we felt that was sort of not appropriate to have a huge luxurious apartment on the BMR level and then have to pay $2,500 a month for their food. So the agreement there is that they would build or buy us the number, I think at the time was seven, rental units. We found one just in time and they assisted with the purchase and paid for - it was a 12 unit, and we borrowed some money to pay for the rest and we rehabilitated it and they paid for the rehab of seven. We have that apartment building today. The Palo Alto Times site where Classic Communities did a big housing development and at that time that was kind of the beginning of these outrageous new prices of single family homes and we again thought this is high and maybe not quite right. In that case they had a piece of land across the street they didn’t know quite know what to do with and they offered and we accepted, they built a four-unit little building and it is rental. Again the value of that we had to borrow a little bit of money on that deal because their contribution was not that much and that has been wonderful. They made one of the units completely disability accessible and it has just been a win-win. Then I think our favorite example is the Summer Hill development in the SOFA area where they agreed to donate land and the City purchased additional land to get a site for an all- affordable rental project, which is Oak Court Apartments. So there have been different kinds of things we have done historically. I think our policy is always if we can to get more units at a lower income level and we see ourselves as helpful to the City sort of as long time here managing these things appropriately and having the right people income-wise in them. The Alma Plaza situation we were asked the question would you be interested in 14 rental BMR units? We talked about it very generically a year ago or whenever it was kind of in the process for the prescreening and thought that sounded suitable to us because it was rental, lower income, more of them than the very highly priced BMR units where the subsidy is huge for one family. Our Board has discussed this over and over for 35 years but generally speaking we kind of come down on the side of we like BMR units very much, they serve a different income level and they are wonderful, but sometimes it isn’t as appropriate as others. So the idea here is to try to serve the 50 percent of area median income households at a maximum of that. The rents would be roughly then three percent of that income per month and that is the kind of standard HUD rule on determining what housing costs should be. I think some of the comments Mr. McNellis has made it sounds like I have a conflict of interest because I am going to make so much money on this that naturally I am for it and I want to assure the Commission that our Board is looking at this very carefully. The Devil is in the details you know and we are concerned about a lot of the issues about common area maintenance costs and folks tromping down the hall to get to the community room and living in a situation that is complex being in a mixed use kind of situation. With the grocery trucks make noise at four in the morning? A lot of issues about how we will get along. There will be issues about the use of the community room. There will be complicated documents if it is a lease. It will be a lot of work. It will be complicated. Over time we hope it will not be a loss to us but it is something that we look at as something to at least consider to the more detailed level. I think the 59 years just came from the deed restrictions on ownership units are 59 years. So that is probably where that popped up and it seemed like a long-term lease. I 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 don’t kalow that that’s fixed in stone. I think there are a lot of details to talk about and I think tonight I just sort of wanted to say that we would love very much to talk about the details. If it doesn’t seem to be useful I think there is an option to just go back to where the BMR rentals would still be a good thing and we would be monitoring it in our more usual capacity. So the Housing Corporation is not in this to make money but rather to sort of think about what is a good alternate BMR solution in cases where the regular units are fairly high priced. Chair Holman: I think there are some questions for you and thank you very much. Commissioner Sandas I think you have a question. Again, I just want to remind Commissioners that the presentation was great, it was very informative, and we don’t want to get into details. We want to talk about land use issues primarily. Commissioner Sandas: Actually I have just a couple of questions. They are details unfortunately but they pertain in my mind to a larger land use question. Marlene, you said you maintain a waiting list of people who are wanting to buy in the BMR program. About how long is that waiting list? Ms. Prendergast: It is about 300. Commissioner Sandas: And about what is the average purchase price that someone on a BMR waiting list is usually able to pay? Ms. Prendergast: Well if you did an average it would be mathematically not very descriptive because the old units are quite inexpensive, we restrict the appreciation rate quite severely in our city because we believe in the long-term affordability of those units. So there can be units at $90,000. Now when we have 800 High and again the Summer Hill units way up there that is when we start to talk about an alternative. Then those units are getting to be between $200,000 and $300,000 and even above $300,000. They do serve a median income of $100,000 to $120,000 as opposed to the old units that kind of served 80 percent, this is all lingo but that is the scale. Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you very much for your presentation. Isn’t one of the objectives though to try to have integrated BMR housing? That way you really can’t tell what income level your neighbors really are they are just part of the neighborhood. Ms. Prendergast: That is one goal. It is not the only goal. We feel very strongly in the for sale units that they are sprinkled about and not put over here by the alley and that is a goal but there are other goals too. Vice-Chair Lippert: In doing this doesn’t it just set aside this one building and say well this is affordable housing for people that and right outside their door are the rich people’s homes? Ms. Prendergast: Well, we have 19 properties around the city and they are next to a lot of rich people’s homes and Oak Court is a good example of that. There are some people who can’t Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 necessarily tell the difference between Oak Court and the $1.5 million condominiums. But that is a point and many people have that policy perspective and it is not wrong. However, most people who are in low-income housing don’t appreciate, they really don’t care too much if I mean there isn’t a stigma. If the building is attractive, well maintained, and they are happy in it we don’t have a lot of issues with gee whiz the rich people are next door and we feel badly about it. They are really kind of glad to be there. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Just one follow up on that. In the report it talked about malting these available to teachers and you have a list of 300. How do you go about managing that and saying a teacher gets preference over someone else who has been on the list say for three years? If it is a teacher from say the Palo Alto Unified School District versus somebody who might be from Mountain View, Los Altos, or the Ravenswood School District? And then again teachers change jobs just like everybody else if they started in Palo Alto and they went to another school district do they get kicked out? Ms. Prendergast: Those are all good points. I think in the rental situation if we were managing it we start a waiting list. We work on that property and if it is to be that there is a special priority for teachers that would be known right up front. We kind of looked at this teacher priority. Teachers would have a preference anyway because they work in Palo Alto. In almost all of our properties it is live or work in Palo Alto as a preference. If there is a special priority for teachers you can say well what about the librarian, what the about the graphic artist? You can get into all that discussion that teachers have been focused on as people who probably don’t earn the money they should and have special needs for housing. The last time we really looked at this issue was some years ago I think when Roxy Rapp was trying to do 800 High and he thought about that. I looked into is a bit and so this is all old data but at the time most of the teachers earned a little too much if they had a spouse also working. So I am not sure how it actually works out. There was also a focus on utility workers and fire fighters and police and they made too much money for the usual rental program. I don’t personally think it is a legal problem. I don’t advise the City on that but I think if it didn’t have a disparate impact on some constitutional class and as long as our teachers are of all nationalities creates whatever that might not be a problem. Those are kind of the things I have thought about with that question. It can be done it is kind of your choice. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: This is perfect timing because this is actually a nice follow up to Vice- Chair Lippert’s question. I think that to a lot of people the idea of providing housing for Palo Alto teachers kind of tugs at our heartstrings. So what I am wondering is the extent to which you think that it is likely that 14 or 13 or 10 or some large number of the units will actually be occupied by teachers in the Palo Alto Unified School District. Ms. Prendergast: I really don’t loaow because I haven’t looked at their salary rate. If we decide on like the 50 percent of area median do they mesh? I haven’t done that recently. I would think 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 that new teachers who might be single people and come to the district anew and aren’t ready to have a picket fence and a little house would be interested but I am not an authority on that yet. Commissioner Keller: It seems to me that you don’t have an idea of how many teachers there are already on your waiting list. Ms. Prendergast: You know, people ask us that and we have gone through it and this means going through every single application and it comes up at not very many. We think it might be that they don’t necessarily know and we try to communicate with the school district and let them know the information. We haven’t done a lot of outreach though specifically to teachers which we would do in the case of a teacher priority. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Chair Holman: I have one quick question for you. I am familiar with - at one point I did a tour of all your properties and I didn’t hear you mention and I don’t remember any mixed use projects that you have. Do you have any and how does that work? I know it is complicated as you stated. Ms. Prendergast: We are trying because it is all us. I mean it is mixed use like the Alma Place we have the office so it is technically a mixed use because it is office. In the Barker Hotel we have two tenants, we have Gelatos and the Patxis Pizza. There are some relationship issues but again one of our entities is the owner, the manager, and the long-term presence. It can be complicated no question. Chair Hohnan: So you are in control of your own destiny basically in those situations. Ms. Prendergast: I think here we would be looking for documents that would be suitable to both sides to have a relationship that could possibly work. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Vice-Chair Lippert has a question. Vice-Chair Lippert: Chair Holman raised a very good point with regard to mixed use. What about another approach in raising the bar and looking at those units as being condominiums and therefore people being able to go in at a much lower threshold being able to purchase and establish and build equity and eventually move on and maybe get into the ownership market? Ms. Prendergast: Well, then our role would simply be just to sell those. That is a possibility. Vice-Chair Lippert: And it would also solve the 59-year lease problem. Ms. Prendergast: I think that issue will be explored more as to why that number of years and why in this situation that number of years but that is an alternative. I would still say that the rental serves people of greater need in the community. Page 25 Chair Holman: Thank you very much really appreciate that. I would like to go to the public now. Thank you for your patience really appreciate it. The members of the public will have five minutes and I am sure you will accord each of the speakers the same respect that I asked for the applicant to have. The other thing is so that we can help expedite this and hear you well and stay fresh is when you hear your name called as the next speaker or the next couple of speakers if you could move forward that would kind of help us manage the meeting and be very helpful. The first card I have is for Jim Baer, second is Pat Costanza, followed by Marcus Wood. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mr. Jim Baer, Palo Alto: I am speaking in a capacity of having participated in about 25 Planned 10 Community zones in Palo Alto and to explain to the Commissioners, I appreciate the 11 opportunity, and to the audience how the proposition of the Staff in saying here are the approval 12 with minor conditions only that are acceptable to the applicant would be forwarded to the ARB 13 and otherwise would go to the City Council why that is a positive circumstance for this project, 14 this Commission, and this community, and explain how we hope that that wouldn’t in any way 15 constrain the high level of detailed comments that would be passed onto to City Council. The 16 reason is this, as projects become more complex and as projects that remained intentioned for an 17 extended period of time, if the issues are what is the appropriate land use mix of retail and 18 housing, what is the nature of the form of housing, it is terribly painful for Staff, for ARB 19 members, for an applicant, and neighbors who remained intentioned while those are such high 20 level land use issues that only the City Council can say on recommendation with comments by 21 Planning Commission these are the land use policies we think must first be focused on and 22 direction given and then a project can return for what its project design and implementation is. 23 The kind of issues that should the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines which were the only 24 codified progressive urban land use puts your commercial buildings on an edge should that or 25 shouldn’t that be implemented is a very important comment to hear tonight and pass on to the 26 City Council. But it is not one that weighs to whether the ratio of retail and non-retail uses are 27 meeting the requirements for this zone and this location. Similarly in multiple family home 28 determination whether the PC zone should be penalized as compared to the CN zone so the 29 garages are included in FAR or not included in FAR. All of those are totally the kind of 30 comments that Staff will want to hear, that neighbors and applicants will want hear, that give 31 guidance to those things that are liked, those things that are not liked, which things are valued, 32 which things are viewed as deficient so that the Council can give a land use motion that says 33 come back to us at Planning Commission and ARB level when you satisfy these requirements. 34 Now, applicant, you can choose that that’s a project you want to proceed with or not but we are 35 giving you very forceful direction at that point that gives guidance to all those who participate. It 36 also shortens up the timeframe within which the tension remains about where are we headed. So 37 the neighbors as well, and I am saying this to you, this gives a more narrowly focused period for 38 which the primary issues get resolved. None of us really want to have the ARB deliberate 39 through multiple hearings on setback, landscaping, and those kinds of features when this project 40 after its long history really needs to get to the Council making motions on what is it we want to 41 see from this site. What are its tolerances? What are its exceptions? What are its next 42 iterations? I thought Staff did a superb job in answering a number of your questions. I thought 43 the Commission’s questions were so precise to say if we remain only high level are we really 44 doing sufficient justice to giving Council our thoughts. I hope you can appreciate and 45 understand this has been long thought out, there have been some very difficult, 800 High, the 46 current Hohbach project, 2300 East Bayshore, these were all projects that had a much longer life 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 46 of suspension, cost and Staff time, aggravation for the applicant and the neighbors, and we just hope that you can really understand that this was not meant to in any way shortcut full debate, full participation by Commission, which certainly is there but gets us to the high level issues that only the Council can create resolution by ordinance that then send us onto a path of project definition where everyone’s full buy in is necessary. This is not normal but the dissidence between the land use policies are so much greater than the programmatic design issues that we hope you can understand this is effective land use planning not shortcutting in any way the power that the Commission has to form its recommendations. I am happy to answer any questions but I thought Staff did a superb job and I thought the questions asked by Commissioners about this process focused precisely in on are we given the opportunity for full voice. I happen not to be involved in these letters but if we were to generate a petition signing the same statement I would hope you would respect those the same way you respect a letter that may make the same statement. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. The next speaker is Pat Costanza to be followed by Marcus Wood and then Meta Wagstaff. If you could come forward so that you are prepared that would be great. Mr. Patrick Costanza, Jr., Greenbriar Homes: Good evening Commissioners I am with Greenbriar Homes Communities. I am simply here to introduce myself as McNellis’ partner in this project and to assure you that we certainly have taken into consideration in the last ten months the comments we heard. As Director Emslie had pointed out we certainly had some different direction we believe we heard between the Commission and the Council. We worked very hard to address the Council’s issues and concerns that we heard while taking in your comments concurrently, The plan before you tonight we believe does a lot of that and ultimately as Jim just reiterated the bottom line comes down to what is right uses between retail and housing on the site. Briefly if you are not familiar with Greenbriar Homes Communities we are a privately owned company. We have been doing business in the Bay Area for almost 30 years, we have built over 4,000 homes, and we have a reputation for very high quality homes and communities. We pride ourselves on paying attention to a lot of detail. So ultimately we hope that you would support our request for a zone change and will assure you that whatever gets built there will be high quality. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. Marcus Wood to be followed by Meta. I’m sorry, Mr. Costanza I think there is a question for you. Commissioner Sandas: Actually it is a question for Staff. Mr. Costanza mentioned changing the zone to PC I thought it is PC. Mr. Emslie: It is essentially a completely new project. Commissioner Sandas: A new use as a PC. 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Emslie: Correct, yes, which in our code is essentially a new PC that is issued. Mr. Larkin: Just to clarify further what is being proposed is not an amendment of the existing PC zone but it would actually be a new PC zone. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt, you had a question of the speaker? Commissioner Burt: Yes, for the last speaker, Mr. Costanza. So given that you are an expert on residential development and I take it have a good deal of familiarity with the Palo Alto market or you wouldn’t be making such an investment here and given also that Greenbriar does have a reputation for high quality homes the question that I had asked Mr. McNellis earlier about the anticipated selling price and selling price per square foot by comparison to we have a lot of comps in Palo Alto and we get published. Every quarter I get in the mail the average comp for different areas of town and we certainly have differences on resale units versus new units but this $450 a square foot price that is being used as the basis for the expectation of a BMR contribution is the thing that I want to focus on. This is the only reason that I care about the anticipated selling price. Your business and your profit are not of my interest at all. It is only in terms of that. Can you comment on market rate dollars per square foot or anticipated selling price for these things? Mr. Costanza: First I believe your computation included the garage when you said that is how you got the larger square footage. Commissioner Burt: Yes. Mr. Costanza: A typical market rate housing is not priced with the garage in it so that would automatically put that number higher and I don’t have the numbers you used. What I would suggest the Commission not do is focus on what that exact number is because we don’t know that number is going to be. The market turned 15 percent in a year on us in the East Bay we don’t lcnow what the price is going to be when we get there. It is risky business. The point Mr. McNellis is trying to point is in the ordinance there is a 7.5 percent fee that could be paid. If you looked at the BMRs being offered and you said okay, Greenbriar whatever you generate out of your sales revenue we get 7.5 percent and for all the reasons that were just explained to you by the Housing Authority rentals are looked at in the industry, and we do a lot of BMR housing throughout communities as much better than for sale, so when we looked at doing this this benefits Greenbriar not all to not build them and pay this. It is what is the community benefit. We looked at it as a team. So if you take that revenue we generate no matter what it ends up being at 7.5 percent what can you do better with that? The Housing Authority could go out and build rental units, which are known to be better. In the situation we have to put apartments above a retail which is very common these days in a mixed use community to make those and basically giving the land free because he is building his building he had to go underground to get parking spaces and that cost more but if you just look at the net difference that is being given to the community it is a true benefit. Whether it becomes a $3.0 million benefit or a $2 million benefit depending on where the market goes on the housing we can’t tie that down today but it is a substantial benefit. Additionally the $90,000 a year as Mr. 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 45 McNellis pointed out, typically when we do these things that rental will go back to the person that built the BMRs. They build the BMRs, they have made them low income so they get that rental, they get much less than market rate, and he is offering that to the Housing Authority. That $90,000 will service debt as he said of another $1.5 million. It is truly a big benefit for the community. So again I can’t tell you what the price will be when we sell it, I wish I could, ifI could I would be in the Bahamas and not here, but you really look at the benefit that we are presenting. Thank you Chair Holman: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Marcus Wood to be followed by Meta Wagstaff to be followed by Jen Hinton. Mr. Marcus Wood, Palo Alto: Hello. I live about a mile from the Alma Plaza Shopping Center. I have lived there for about 20 years and i have never shopped at the Alma Plaza Shopping Center. I am here to speak in favor of the project as it is proposed. I think that further enlargement of the retail is not something that is a positive. I think the motivation for me showing up today is I was reading the Palo Alto Daily News this morning and it seemed to me that the article misstates the intention of the consultant’s report. I don’t think a small scale store can survive there making $250,000 a week, that is something akin to $1.0 million a month and would require 1,000 households in the vicinity to spend $1,000 a month on groceries there. I think that would be very difficult. The location is below average and the access is worse. I think that furthermore John McNellis misstated his answer to Commissioner Burt’s question a little while ago and did himself a disservice in that in 1999 while a 45,000 square foot store may have been possible since then a new Trader Joe’s has been built, a new Albertson’s in Mountain View, Long’s has gone into Midtown, the other drug store Walgreen’s, Safeway has enlarged, Piazza’s has improved their service. So I think the horse sort of left the barn ifI can mix my metaphors on the ability to put another store in that location. So I think I would endorse the proposed project and I recommend its support. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. Meta Wagstaffto be followed by Jen Hinton to be followed by Maria Christina. Ms. Jemaifer Wagstaff-Hinton, Palo Alto: Yes, good evening Chair Holman. I am the daughter of Meta Wagstaff and if I may speak on behalf of both of us if that is acceptable? Chair Holman: Yes, you have five minutes. Ms. Wagstaff-Hinton: Okay. Chair Holman and members of the committee thank you for taking time with us this evening. I live in Barron Park, I am a Palo Alto native, and I am a long-time shopper and working mom. My first grocery shopping experience was at Lucky Lot so I appreciate some of the comments of Friends of Alma that want to return to those days when they could walk to the market with their kids and purchase a pack of gum or a gallon of milk. I have fond memories of that property and would like to see it returned to a vital state. So I have been purchasing there for decades. My new market since the closure in 2005 when I stopped 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 purchasing is now Safeway for volume purchases but I still miss having the convenience of having a market and retail nearby. I see a healthy community profile as one where there is a constructive tension between community leaders, the people of the community, and the property owners. Really the good news story here today is I see all three of those forces working together in a constructive way. We don’t agree. I suppose to this point we have agreed to disagree. The forces I see in each of these the people here coming repeatedly to these presentations of the Commission and the Council meeting as my mother and I have. I see them wanting quality affordable shopping nearby. I see them wanting a market, an ATM, a coffee shop, a bank, maybe a mail joint, Jacquie’s Sew & Sew, these are all the things we have seen outlined here this evening and I too long for those in a nearby shopping center. And they have asked recently for open space and I see some of those things coming forward in the proposed plan. You as community leaders are responsible for assuring that revenue is generated as a result of successful and vital projects. You certainly want quality solutions. We debated tonight the merits of the BMR solution. I think we welcome moving forward to a solution but that cannot occur unless the program is approved. Finally, the property owners certainly want approval to move forward. They want an ROI on their project. They do not want a failure and as a result they want to be able to add this to their list of success stories in Palo Alto and other areas. They certainly want to build on a good reputation. They also contribute to the community. You may not be aware but both of the partners have contributed to Partners in Education over the last year so they do care about the schools. They are offering to do the Below Market Rate solution working constructively with the City and they have offered open space. So really the only issue I see tonight is that we are bringing all these forces together but we are not acting. As much as we desire to act we are leaving barriers between us and so my conclusion is as I look at these forces we are not that far apart and my request to you this evening is that you vote to approve the project as submitted or in the spirit of compromise approve it with conditions that are agreeable to the developers so that we can move forward and build a property that the neighborhood, you, and the community will be proud of. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Maria Christina to be followed by David van der Wilt to be followed by Kurt Reitman. Ms. Maria Christina, Palo Alto: Hi, I live across the street from Edgewood Plaza hence I followed the developments at Alma with great interest. I agree with the previous speaker completely. The developer is bending over backwards to meet the communities needs and the recommendations made in the past. McNellis Partners has over the years consulted with a number of experts who have in turn given them their own evaluations and recommendations. I am at a bit of a loss sometimes as to why so many of us who aren’t experts speak so loudly. It is aldn to someone not trained in language pedagogue telling me how to teach my Spanish classes at Stanford. The proposed design that McNellis Partners and Greenbriar Homes have is really beautiful. As an educator and a single mother of three I think it is wonderful that teachers might have priority for the rental BMRs. We have gone back and forth on Alma for years. My daughter was in elementary school she is now about to graduate from Paly. Job would have run out of patience by now and so I urge you to please approve this project. 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Thank you very much. David van der Wilt to be followed by Kurt Reitman and then followed by Paul McClelland. Mr. David van der Wilt, Palo Alto: I am a dentist who has practiced at 3515 Alma Street for the past 31 years. I am also a partner in the ownership of the professional office building directly adjacent to the Alma Plaza on the southern property line. My residence is also in the immediate neighborhood so I am keenly interested in this project. My primary concerns regarding this proposal relate to how it will affect neighborhood parking, the access to Alma Street from my office, public safety, and aesthetic considerations. For the past 31 years that I have been at this location my staff, patients, and I have used parking spaces in the Alma Plaza lot. This proposal does not take into consideration our prescriptive fights for parking. Though this week Mr. McNellis verbally assured my partner that our access drive through the Plaza will not be moved the proposal in fact calls for moving our deeded access right-of-way through the Alma Plaza lot to a position which would eliminate several parldng spaces on our own parking lot. It also forces a change in the location of our refuse dumpster to reduce one more parking space. This issue needs some official written resolution. The proposal also calls for the use by Alma Plaza of four spaces of street parking on the frontage road in front of our building. This frontage road is built on a City easement on our property. I recognize that the potential developer needs more parking to justify the density of the development but reducing the parking available for our patients and staff on our own property due to their redesigning the traffic flow as well as ignoring a 50-year history of parking at Alma Plaza is unacceptable. The proposed changes in the frontage road from two-way traffic to one-way going north also limits our access to Ahna Street. Currently auto traffic leaving our front drive can go south on the frontage road to continue onto southbound Alma or turn east or west on Meadow. The proposed change would require all south, east and westbound traffic from our offices to either go through the Plaza parking lot or go north on Alma and then turn into the main entrance to the Alma Plaza, make a U-turn, and make a U-turn, or continue to E1 Verano and go around the block on Ramona Street. The proposal also calls for the changing of our ingress access at the southwest comer of the Plaza to egress only. As drawn on the proposal this would require all traffic to our offices from northbound and southbound Alma and eastbound from the Meadow intersection to enter the one and only inbound access to the Plaza. We want to maintain ingress at the southwest comer of the site. This plan causes unnecessary congestion. I am sorry to go into so much detail but we have had no opportunity to give input to the developer over the past year. So I guess this is my only chance. The congestion that this auto traffic causes is unsafe with egress only at the current southern entrance there would be three lanes of traffic coming together with no merge lane beyond the proposed Alma Plaza egress. The proposal reclaims the current City easement on Alma Plaza for the merge lane. The proposed changes for this frontage road are not new in fact a very similar design has been circulated within the City Administration for at least several years. However, this proposed 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 site’s development’s traffic pattern is new and the access needs to reflect the changes in onsite traffic flow and the needs of the neighbors. The redesign of the traffic patterns on the frontage road and Alma Street needs to reflect the needs of all the offices and apartments in the neighborhood not just the proposed new development. This issue needs to be seriously reevaluated with all parties represented. There are also safety issues with pedestrian and bicycle traffic flow as designed. Currently many students living on Alma Street use the Alma Plaza access to Ramona Street on their way to school. This plan would route them through a very congested parking lot during morning rush hour. There must be a better way to separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic. We also have concerns for the aesthetic elements of the proposed development. May I continue? Chair Holman: If you could finish your sentence that would be great. Thank you. Mr. van der Wilt: The following are the bottom line elements. I submit my written statement for the record, okay? The following are bottom line items that we want for the development of the Plaza site. We want to maintain our prescriptive parking rights. We want ingress at the southwest corner of the site. We want two-way access on the frontage road or direct access from Alma Street onto our property. No change in position of the parking lot easement driveway. No exposed trash storage and guaranteed access through the parking lot easement during construction. Chair Holman: Thank you. I believe there is a question for you. Mr. Keller. Commissioner Keller: Yes, Dr. van der Wilt you indicated there is a prescriptive rights for parking. Is there documentation of those prescriptive rights for parldng that you have available that you would like to share at some point? Mr. van der Wilt: We don’t have any documentation we just have a history of spaces being used for the past 50 years. The dentist that was there before me, Dr. Janklow, came in the 1950 I think and was one of the original tenants of that office. Mr. Larkin: If I could interrupt. The term ’prescriptive rights’ implies that there is no documentation. It is prescriptive based on a pattern of use. Mr. van der Wilt: Historical use, I think. Commissioner Keller: Thank you, Mr. Larldn. So that is basically based on a pattern of use that has happened over a period of time. Mr. van der Wilt: Right. We have had unrestricted use of the parldng lot for the 31 years that I have been there and we can get testimony I am sure from Dr. Janklow that would say it has been for 50 years. 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 46 Chair Holman: Thank you so very much. Kurt Reitman to be followed by Paul McClelland and then followed by Len Filppu. Mr. Kurt Reitman, Palo Alto: Good evening. I presently have my real estate appraisal practice at 3525 Alma Street, the adjacent office building south of the proposed Alma development. I am one of the partners in ownership of the building. Although I am basically in favor of the development the concerns voiced by David van der Wilt echo my concerns. I request the Planning Commission to so note. The major focus of my presentation is of the following: for the past 50 years the 3501, 3525 Alma Street ownerships have improved and maintained our landscape easement that is in the existing Alma Plaza Shopping Center. Mr. McNellis indicated to me only at our Thursday meeting that he is intending to reduce this are from ten feet to within five feet of our existing property line in order to move the proposed surface parking closer to our building and apparently to allow for the parking of trucks along the south elevation. Since ! believe he does not have the legal right it is my opinion that any approval by the Planning Commission should include the ten-foot landscape area along our property line. Not only because of my legal rights but to prevent the negative impact on my property value due to proposed activity that will occur from the presence of delivery trucks and scavenger service removing garbage from the grocery operation. Another major concern is the maintaining of our ingress and egress easement through the Alma project during the construction of any developments since our access to our drive would entail being in very close proximity of the proposed retail buildings. Although Mr. McNellis agrees that we have a legal fight to ingress and egress throughout the property we would like to include in the development guidelines a definitive documentation that the existing curbs and the width of the drive location will not be changed without our agreement. Although Dr. van der Wilt has expressed his concern to the potential debris from the deliveries and subsequent scavenger pickup I speak on this issue as a real estate appraisal professional who has appraised neighborhood shopping centers. If strict guidelines are not put in on this development for the prevention of waste and litter around the building that is commonly found in delivery areas of supermarkets this development will be a blight and will definitely be a negative impact on the value of our property. The guidelines should include the maintenance of the outside area from the debris and keeping of the proposed overhead door closed leading to what the proposed scavenger garbage area is at all times except during the actual delivery of goods. I thank you for your patience. Chair Holman: Thank you and before our next speaker I have a process question for Staff. We received from Len Filppu something that said there was going to be a series of speakers and they wanted to put their cards in place. So can I offer Mr. Filppu the option of either speaking before our break and then interrupting their series of speakers or just taking them because Commissioners are asking for a break. Do I have the option of asking him what his preference is? I don’t suppose there is any problem with that but I just want to make sure it is okay. Mr. Larkin: That is within your discretion. Page 33 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 Chair Holman: Okay. So our next speaker is Paul McClelland and then Mr. Filppu you will have the opportunity to weigh in on how you would like to proceed. Mr. Paul McClelland, Palo Alto: Thank you for your time this evening. I want to take a step back and exactly talk about the land use policy statement. If we think this laptop that is here back when I left college, back in the dark ages as my sons tell me, the mainframe computer didn’t have as much computing power as this but it was so big that it took pretty much most of the space that we are talking about here. If we think back to the picture that was up there earlier in terms of the yellow square that outlined the property, if you take a little bit more perspective and go a little bit farther back you will see right on the other side of the professional use building is a small apartment complex right behind the property where it kind of cuts off at an angle is another apartment complex. Right next to the property going down the left hand side was the Stanford Villa Apartments. If you go farther down Alma there is already a tremendous amount of housing there. So when we are talking about the need for real retail space, effective retail space from a consumer shopping perspective it seems to me that there is already more than enough housing that is in the area or higher density housing that is in the area. So we are not in a world of extremes here. I think that the likelihood of zero housing and pure retail is not practical. However, I think that the compromise or the split that focuses primarily on housing with some retail you have to accommodate of which a good portion is not actually consumer driven retail that it kind of defeats the purpose. If you take a step back and look at the context for the general land use and look mostly at how much higher density housing is already within 100 yards, within 200 yards or 300 yards of the property that we are talking about that a little bit more leaning towards the retail, consumer driven retail is more appropriate for the area. Absolutely, as somebody that lives about 50 yards from the spot that we are talking about I whole heartedly recall when we purchased our home not quite ten years ago this was right on the precipice of happening and I actually have a son who is about to graduate from college that remembers this fateful promise that this was going to happen. So I would love to see closure as well to back up what Staff said. Thank you for your time. Chair Holman: Thank you Mr. McClelland. Len Filppu is our next speaker and the communication I referenced was also in our list of communications and Staff was forwarded that email too. Actually, you included Staff and I appreciate that. So the option is yours. Commissioners are asking for a break because we have been at this for almost two and a half hours. So if it is not disruptive to your presentation you can go ahead and speak or you can speak and follow up by your other speakers when we return from a break it is your option. Mr. Len Filppu, Palo Alto: Thank you very much, Chairwoman Holman. We appreciate your concern in this. Why don’t we just take a break and everyone get a bit refreshed and we will come back and get into it. Chair Holman: Thank you. So we will take an eight-minute break. Thank you very much. Okay, it looks like everybody is back in the room. Where we left off was Len Filppu would be our next speaker to be followed by Sheri Fumaan to be followed by Bob Moss. Again, if you all could position yourselves toward the front that would help out. Thank you. 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 46 Mr. Filppu: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak and for your attention tonight. I am a member of the Friends of Alma Plaza many of whom will follow me tonight with various perspectives. The issue before you is really quite simple. Once you strip away zoning nuances and traffic flow projections, deed restrictions, BMR, ARB, and the like it really comes down to one basic decision. Alma Plaza is a neighborhood center. You must decide whether this proposal meets a high enough standard to justify removing forever a designated neighborhood center from the families, neighborhoods, and fabric of this city. This proposal simply does not meet that standard. We agree to abide by the decisions of our government representatives because we place in you a special trust to act in the public’s long-term best interest. We expect you to be above the fray of shifting economic trends and expedient political arguments. We are now mired in such a battle and we urge you to rise to the occasion for the highest possible level view. The applicant wishes to replace a neighborhood serving retail center with primarily housing. Why? Because the economic pendulum has swung and housing now returns a greater profit than does retail. There is nothing wrong with pursuing profit but it is not always in the best interest of the public. Make no mistake, this same developer was before you a few years ago arguing for a full retail future for Alma Plaza. He clings to the profit pendulum wherever it swings, as well he should, but you must not take that ride with him. Many of us in the surrounding neighborhood purchased our homes faithfully expecting that the Comprehensive Plan would be respected and that Alma Plaza would remain a full retail center for the walkable, non-polluting, community-building needs of our families. Are these promises to be shattered by the swinging pendulum? The benefits of neighborhood centers are many. You know them better than I. They are worth defending and fighting for. The applicant knew when he purchased the property that it was a neighborhood center yet his proposal is not consistent with the City’s vision. It does not even live up to the minimum retail recommendations this body gave him last April. It certainly does not meet a standard that would justify ripping from our citizens one of our few unique neighborhood centers. We urge you to keep your eyes on what is right for the long-term best interests of Palo Alto. We ask that you rise above the unpredictably changing nature of what is currently profitable, shake off project fatigue, and skeptically question insider-spun argument. The profit seeking pendulum ride is dizzying and we need clear heads for this critical decision that will forever impact Palo Alto’s landscape and history. Thank you very much. Chair Holman: Thank you. The next speaker is Sheri Furman to be followed by Bob Moss and after that is Anjan Ghose. Ms. Sheri Furman, Palo Alto: Although I am Chair of the Midtown Resident’s Association I am not officially here tonight in that capacity, however, what I am saying represents what I have been hearing for the last several years from the Midtown residents so just to make that decision. 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 I am here tonight to talk about vision. We are all here because we have differing visions of what a neighborhood center should be and how the Comprehensive Plan supports these visions and that is the problem. Program L-15 of the Comp Plan calls for the establishment of a planning process for neighborhood centers that identifies the desired character of the area, its role within the city, the locations of public gathering places, appropriate land uses and building forms, and its connections to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. That is pretty much a quote. This is where we have failed. The City has never defined what Alma Plaza should be it has simply responded to individual projects without its own view of what the center should be. Nor has it asked the neighbors what their vision of the center is. For us, the neighbors, the core vision for Alma Plaza is how the Comp Plan defines neighborhood centers inviting pedestrian scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the city’s residential neighborhoods. The neighborhoods have been consistent in what they want from Alma Plaza, neither a single mega store nor the current minimal retail but a neighborhood center like Midtown, like Charleston, like Alma once was. Center is the operative word here. I don’t think the Comp Plan envisioned a neighborhood center being essentially a strip mall. The Comp Plan also states that the City is committed to retaining existing businesses, maintaining vital commercial areas, and attracting quality new businesses. Even the Staff Report notes the City will have to consider the economic consequences of allowing residential on an existing commercial site and thereby reducing the square footage available for sales tax generating retail use in the city. About the housing issue, Palo Alto is at 150 percent of its market rate housing allocation. What is lacking is affordable not just BMR housing. The neighborhoods are not against housing on the site but rather for integrated mixed use by putting all the housing above retail we achieve a win- win situation, increased retail and increased affordable housing. Finally, the issue is simple, we the residents and the City itself need this four-plus acre site to remain primarily retail and we need a shared vision. We should be demanding a forward- thinking mixed use project that provides a critical mass of retail along with affordable housing. It can be done. Please encourage such a vision and reject this project. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Bob Moss to be followed by Anjan Ghose followed by Marilyn Keller. Mr. Bob Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Holman and Commissioners. Alma Plaza redevelopment under the PC zone is neither warranted nor inappropriate. The PC zone is intended to accommodate specific types of developments, which require flexibility, controlled conditions, and unusual circumstances that you can’t get in a normal district. There is supposed to be a balance between the benefits that the developer gets and the balance that the community gets. We are supposed to have equal allowances on both sides. This project badly fails that requirement. The proposal for the PC Alma Plaza is a classic win-lose-lose-lose situation. The developer wins by getting huge windfall profits. The community loses because we don’t get Page 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 adequate retail. The neighborhood loses because they are forced to drive out of town to shop, and the City loses because of the significant decrease in revenue from sales taxes from an inadequate retail center and the increase in the cost of servicing the excessive housing. The PC proposal is even more inappropriate than usual for Alma Plaza because Alma Plaza is zoned for and intended to be developed as a CN zone, which allows mixed use. It would allow adequate retail and would allow some housing but it emphasizes retail. The City Council has made a policy statement that we should preserve retail and we should not be converting retail to housing. The proposal before you for this PC zone flies in the face of established Council 10 policy. Listen to the benefits, supposedly. The first benefit is revitalization of a blighted area. If 11 there is any blight it is due to the mismanagement of the owners and managers of the property 12 over the last ten years. The property has been in the past run and operated profitably and been a 13 real credit to the community. The blight is not because of the location it is because of 14 incompetence on the part of the owners. This is not a public benefit. The second so-called 15 benefit is 24,000 square feet of retail of which a significant portion is a community center, an 16 underground garage, and a storage area. That is not a public benefit. It also violates the 17 established policy for how you handle retail in CN zones. That again is not a reason for having a 18 PC. The third benefit supposedly is providing walks and benches. That is just the normal way 19 you build a retail center. Those walks and benches are going to be used primarily by people who 20 are in the shopping area or in the housing. It is not something that is going to attract people from 21 around the neighborhood to go and walk around the area and sit on the benches. That is not a 22 public benefit. The fourth supposed benefit is kiosks and bicycle amenities. I have never heard 23 anybody in the neighborhood say that the first thing we need is a kiosk so we can have people 24 come up and put all of this garbage on it like you have on California Avenue and then nobody 25 ever maintains it. That is not anything the people asked for I hardly consider that a public 26 benefit. As for the bicycle parking that is a requirement. That is part of the ordinance. This is 27 not a public benefit. The fifth benefit is paying the required fees for traffic, parks, and libraries. 28 I am glad to hear the developer is going to follow the law and pay those fees but that is not a 29 public benefit. The sixth benefit is urban design along Alma. The last thing we need along 30 Alma is an urban design. Earlier you talked about how they were misapplying the E1 Camino 31 Design Guidelines on Alma. What we really need is something that fits the neighborhood. 32 Cutting off that 30 foot setback and putting the building directly on Alma will be a real disaster. 33 That would not be a public benefit that would be a public detriment. It is not a public benefit at 34 all. The seventh benefit supposedly is providing 14 BMR apartments above the retail space, no 35 setbacks from the street, right up facing the railroad tracks, and with the potential for real sound 36 and traffic problems from the retail and grocery down below. Since when is segregated housing 37 a public benefit? Market rate units consume all the rest of the site. In the past, we have insisted, 38 and I tell you I have been insisting for 30 years that the market rate units integrate the BMR units 39 and that they all be identical and similar. Commissioner Burt asked what the cost of housing is 40 currently. In the last two years the square foot cost for homes in Palo Alto resale has never been 41 below $625.00 a square foot. Those homes are going to sell for almost $1.6 million. 42 43 44 45 I will close by saying that I am going to ask you to act for the benefit of the entire community. Don’t maximize the developer profits. Totally reject this PC at Alma Plaza. 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 Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Anjan Ghose to be followed by Marilyn Keller to be followed by Jeff Greenfield. Mr. Anjan Ghose, Palo Alto: Hi, I lived with my family in Palo Alto for 13 years. Just as a man is often judged by the kind of car he drives I think a community is often judged by what it builds. Not the many years ago most communities across America resembled closely neighborhoods where people lcnew each other and people assimilated in the local establishments to form their bonds. But today, unfortunately, America is probably the only nation where people drive to go to a gym so they can exercise on a walking machine. Really, I don’t believe in any other country you have this problem. This I believe has happened because we have added housing without the consideration that should have been given to local services. The vast majority of people I lcnow want to live in the kind of flavor that neighborhoods across America did have not that many years ago, which would mean walkable/bikeable neighborhoods, the local grocer, barber shop, the ice cream shop where you can go with your family for leisure. It is no accident that there are over 750 signatures that local residents have collected so far favoring to keep Alma as a local neighborhood retail center. In fact the reason we moved to this city is due to the noticeably stronger community environment, the greenery, the parks, and the small town feel. With aging baby boomers and seniors in the city you must mandate for more retail. Palo Alto is a place I would like to retire and it is not a place where I am willing to get into my car and drive to a mega supermarket to buy some small trivial thing. The vision of the neighborhood retail center is exactly that. So please allow the local residents to spend their tax dollars within the city. A ground level retail followed by second story housing somewhat like a mini Santana Row would in the long term be of a lot more benefit to this community. Closer to my home there is a complex between E1 Camino and E1 Camino Way where I believe retail has been very nicely integrated with housing and office space. I believe currently there is a Subway and a Starbuck’s there. I doubt you could check out this area. People actually like walking over there to get a cup of coffee or get as newspaper. The City Comp Plan designates Alma Plaza as a primarily neighborhood serving retail shopping center and you yourself have recommended that Alma Plaza adhere to the Comp Plan guidelines. Finally, as we know, once there is housing there is always housing and we are never going to get retail back. So please think about the long term affects of your decision. Finally, all I can say is I urge you to do the right thing. Thank you. Chair Holman: Excuse me Mr. Ghose I have a question. You referenced a neighborhood shopping area that people are going to what area were you referring to? Mr. Ghose: It is where the Starbuck’s is between E1 Camino and E1 Camino Way. Chair Holman: Okay, thank you very much. The next speaker is Marilyn Keller to be followed by Jeff Greenfield and then followed by martin Stone. Ms. Marilyn Keller, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live within about a five-minute walk from Alma Plaza. I am spealdng on behalf of over 750 Palo Alto residents who signed this petition Page 38 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 that you should have in front of you. In brief this petition states that we want to keep Alma Plaza primarily retail. I spoke with hundreds of people. Most who saw this petition signed with enthusiasm. People are clamoring for affordable retail within Palo Alto. Nobody wants the increased pollution and traffic we all create driving to stores further away. Signers repeatedly asked why is Palo Alto losing so much retail? Why does Palo Alto seem to support developers over the needs of the city? Where will the children go to school? Not one person questioned if the area would support retail. Not one person questioned the accessibility of Alma Plaza. Not one person asked for more at market housing in place of retail and believe me people talked a long time. That is why we don’t have more signatures. Palo Alto is quite special partly due to having convenient and friendly neighborhood centers. Many of us moved here at great expense in part to live in a more walkableibikeable community with services close by not only for now but for when we are too old to drive. We don’t want to lose the benefits that we bought into and expected to enjoy when we moved here. It is difficult for me to understand why Palo Alto would choose to abandon local neighborhood services to add homes near the noisy railroad tracks in a commercial area without easy access to public transportation. The developer’s proposal would significantly reduce retail space and negatively impact our schools, parks, libraries, City budget, and local services. How would these changes benefit Palo Alto? Who would benefit? I know our neighborhood has been criticized for rejecting past proposed plans. The reality is that our neighborhood has held a consistent course asking for retail that is not too big for a true diverse neighborhood retail center and not too small to serve our community. We are asking for a mid-size retail area that has so nicely served our neighborhood since the 1950s before the new owner discouraged new businesses in Alma Plaza. Finally, I would like to reflect back on some words of wisdom presented at last summer’s ethics class required for all Palo Alto Commissioners and Council Members. We were advised that when making decisions we are required to one, very carefully consider the reasons behind previously made decisions, to look back in history, and two, to consider even more carefully how our decisions today will impact Palo Alto in the future long after immediate present day issues are forgotten, when economics change, when project fatigue ends, and all the rest. Are the proposed changes at Alma Plaza filling a true change in Palo Alto’s future needs or are they merely addressing temporary present day issues at best? Over 750 Palo Alto residents believe that the proposed changes will not benefit Palo Alto. In the long run it will takeaway long-term benefits thoughtfully planned out in the past. In closing, please keep Alma Plaza primarily retail. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you Ms. Keller no relation to Commissioner Keller. Jeff Greenfield to be followed by Martin Stone to be followed by Greg Tremellen. Mr. Jeff Greenfield, Palo Alto: Hi, I will further expound upon Commissioner Keller’s clarification. I am Marilyn Keller’s husband and I will add to what my wife has just said regarding the petition. 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 We first became involved with Alma Plaza about a year ago when we started this petition as a true grassroots effort. Our petition states that we want to keep Alma Plaza as primarily retail. Palo Alto needs this retail. Alma Plaza is one of only four neighborhood serving retail centers in our city and with all the new local housing convenient neighborhood retail is even more critical now. Over the past few months I have spoken to many people about Alma Plaza while gathering signatures. The response had been astounding. People get it right away. Most people signed eagerly without hesitation. As we have been repeating over 750 people have now signed. Support has been citywide not just from the local neighborhood. Palo Alto residents value local retail and are concerned about losing it. Why? Convenient local retail enhances our community and our quality of life while reducing city traffic and increasing tax revenue. In addition to the traditional paper petition we have also collected online signatures from residents and one benefit of this format is that signers can optionally add their own comments. You should find four pages of online petition comments in your packet and I will read a few of the comment. Please preserve retail space in Palo Alto. Retail is a good idea for seniors in the area. Please retain one of the last meeting places within the community. I am a neighbor and I think it is critical to have a neighborhood serving retail especially a quality grocery store that is a walkable/bikeable distance from Fair Meadow Eichler community. Today, I am frustrated by what Alma Plaza is right now. I have a couple of daughters, ages six and ten, and for me personally a window of opportunity is closing for walks or bike rides to the local market or the bagel shop or the ice cream shop. Yes, anything beats an abandon shopping center and as much as I would like something to go in at Alma Plaza I can’t advocate the current subdivision where retail is simply an afterthought. The issue at hand is about preserving the quality of life for ourselves and for future generations. Any part of Alma Plaza converted to residential will remain residential well beyond our years. Please don’t give up the lion’s share of our neighborhood center to housing with really no benefit to our community. Our community needs and insightful mixed use project that benefits the community with a diversity of retail and that serves as a gathering place. We are specifically looking for neighborhood serving retail not additional office space. Please consider the numbers, more than 750 Palo Alto residents and the number continues to grow are now on record stating that they support keeping Alma Plaza as primarily retail. Thanks for your consideration. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Martin Stone to be followed by Greg Tremellen to be followed by Mr. John Grant. Mr. Martin Stone, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am here today to talk about the future retail viability of Ahna Plaza. In anticipation of the May 2006 prescreening at City Council John McNellis and Jim Baer authored a big book. The essence of Jim Baer’s argument was that Alma Plaza has been in decline and not viable for retail since the 1980s. Here you have Exhibit A, a chart from 1983 from the records of the Planning Department that shows that Alma Plaza was fully rented both the retail space and the office space. Next you have Exhibit B a chart from 1988, which also shows that Alma Plaza was still fully rented albeit with a slightly different mix of tenants. In essence we are seeing market forces at work. Tenants come tenants go, they need Page 40 1 more space, they need different space, they succeed, they fail. Baer’s argument that Alma Plaza 2 has been in decline for the past 25 years is simply not supported by the available data. The 3 critical question is did market forces cause Alma Plaza decline? The fact is as Bob Moss alluded 4 Alma Plaza’s decline can be most closely associated with John McNellis’ involvement with 5 Alma Plaza not with market forces. 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 The essence of McNellis’ argument in the big book was that neighborhood serving retail centers like Ahna Plaza have not been viable since the early 1990s because Nina Gruen said so. Here is Exhibit C, which is an excerpt from one of Gruen’s charts built with data generated unfortunately by the Planning Department. It shows Alma Plaza to be the worst among the neighborhood serving retail centers with sales tax revenue of only 95 cents per square foot. Unfortunately it is completely wrong. You all have copies in the handout of an errata page, which defines and identifies all the flaws in the Planning Department’s data. Next we have Exhibit D, which is the same excerpt but revised with confirmable data generated by the Finance Department. This chart shows Alma Plaza to have been the crown jewel among the neighborhood serving retail centers with sales .tax revenue of $1.55 per square foot. When it comes to sales tax date only the Finance Department knows for sure. The core of Gruen’s analysis and unfortunately that of the subsequent reports which relied upon her data is her Exhibit C and it is fatally flawed data. It follows that McNellis’ reliance upon Gruen’s theoretical constructs is significantly misplaced. Dan Geller who then owned both the Stanford Villa Apartments and the non-grocery portion of Alma Plaza was first heard by the ARB in 1989 on a 6,000 square foot retail building to replace the closed and remediated gas station. Geller struggled from 1989 to 1995 to get his plan through the Planning Commission and the ARB. Sadly he failed. The conundrum we have however, is that at the very time that Gruen & Gruen was telling City Council that neighborhood serving retail in Palo Alto was dead a real investor who had real money who really owned land which was really zoned commercial was telling this Commission and the ARB that he was willing and eager to invest in the expansion of neighborhood serving retail at Alma Plaza. It is difficult to reconcile Green’s theories with Geller’s reality. Exhibit E is a table of contents of the volume of 15 old retail studies assembled by the Planning Department as Staff worked with City Council also in preparation of the May 2006 City Council prescreening. Unfortunately this large volume is [compendium] is largely worthless. The studies, which were the progeny of the Planning Department’s own fatally flawed data and the equally flawed 1992 Gruen & Gruen study are lightly shaded. So if you go read them, and I have read every word of them, they never should have been provided to City Council or they should have been provided with appropriate annotation. Could you go to the next page, please? The studies, which were utterly irrelevant to neighborhood serving retail, are more darkly shaded. For example on this page there is a SOFA II analysis, which has absolutely no relationship to neighborhood serving retail. So only two studies remain un-shaded one by Thompson & Associates who are here this evening and the other by Sedway Group both of which were highly supportive of Alma Plaza’s viability and its remaining a neighborhood serving retail center. 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 42 43 44 45 46 The Friends of Alma Plaza commissioned a study of the viability of a 20 to 25,000 square foot grocery store anchoring a 40 to 45,000 neighborhood serving retail center. We hired as our consultant John McNellis’ consultant, Thompson & Associates, today known as Mapinfo, the author of the premier industry standard study on grocery store siting and potential revenue streams not profitability. Their reports were presented several times by McNellis himself to this very body when McNellis was representing Lucky’s and later Albertson’s in their efforts to put a monster grocery store at Alma Plaza. I am pleased to introduce to you Greg Tremellen of Mapinfo who will walk you through the retail viability study, which you have in your packets following my comments. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you Mr. Stone. The next speaker is as was introduced Greg Tremellen to be followed by John Grant and then followed by Rachel Samoff. Mr. Greg Tremellen, Mapinfo, Dublin: Good evening. I wasn’t really expecting this when we got this study, that would be a public hearing and what have you. In fact this is the first time this has ever happened. I have been doing this for about ten years now. About two months ago we were contacted to perform a market survey, which we accepted. We came out and provided a sales forecast for the store. Basically what the sales forecast detailed was a 20,000 to 25,000 square foot supermarket feasibility survey. With that we generate the projected income that a 20,000 or 25,000 square foot supermarket could attain. With that information Martin Stone or McNellis or whoever can take that report and give it to the supermarket real estate consultant or the person who can calculate the ROI on it. We don’t really get into the profitability of the project that really has to do with the construction costs, the deal between the developer and the supermarket. So I just want to go on record too that when I read the Daily Press today it states in quotes that no deals have ever been made like that and that is simply not true. IfI said that it was wrong. I have seen deals based on this analysis happen and I have seen them not happen. It is really contingent upon what the developer can do and the market forces that they have to charge. I heard you guys talking about the site characteristics of the store. One thing I will say when I came out to Palo Alto I wasn’t very impressed with any of the site characteristics of any of the supermarkets in Palo Alto. For example Whole Foods here you have to park and walk across the street to get into it. The Safeway parldng lot - I mean I couldn’t even park my car and this was during the middle of the day. So those seem to be very highly utilized supermarkets, however, when we did the study five years ago there have been a lot of changes. Whole Foods built a huge market in Los Altos where they could put 50,000 square feet. So the market per cap, the 20,000 seems to have created a lot of dissidence and issues with the city. Alma Plaza itself is a little bit difficult to get in and out of but compared to the other stores it is better than what you got. So that was kind of a mixed message and I could see why I have heard different theories about that and that is what I would come up with. But simply, unfortunately I can’t say that this is going to be profitable or not profitable or what have you that is up to these guys malting a deal that that will work. If you have any questions? Chair Holman: I believe Commissioner Keller has a question and there is another one too. 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: In terms of your study you seem to focus on the grocery store itself and the question I have relates to if you have any thoughts on what would be a good amount of ancillary retail to put with a grocery store so that the combined traffic of both of them is useful? Is there some sort of guideline? Is 5,000 about the right number, or is ten, or 15? If you can give some sort of idea about that it would be helpful. Mr. Tremellen: Absolutely. There is no guideline on that. Basically the supermarket is the anchor of the center and the supermarket is what is going to drive the rest of the center. I don’t really lcnow any ratios that have qualified. I have seen a lot of freestanding supermarkets with absolutely no other tenant use adjacent and I have seen big shopping centers with like Home Depot and then there is a supermarket. So there is really no set situation for that. Sorry I couldn’t be more help. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: On your sales summary you listed under the prospective 20,000 square foot store a range of anywhere from $12.36 per square foot to $14.22 per square foot. How do those. numbers compare to other grocery stores throughout the region? Are they higher, lower, typical? Mr. Tremellen: They are in line. They are in line. If we look at the supermarkets today and their sales per square foot ratio which is a real measure of their success and viability in the neighborhood you would see that the average, we have seven supermarkets in here, I think the average is about $12.00. So when we come up with $12.00 it is saying that this is a very average site. Commissioner Burt: So the low end of your estimate at $12.36 is above the average and then the $14 .... Mr. Tremellen: Well, I would say - ifI can find the piece of paper that gives the exact average. That is our sales summary. We actually go out and we estimate the stores serving the trade area. We actually go and estimate their sales that they are achieving and the size of the store. The average sales per square foot right now in the supermarkets serving the smaller trade areas because it is a smaller community center is $14.84. So we are saying something about $12.00. Commissioner Burt: Do you have a sense of a larger trade area, the peninsula kind of region? Mr. Tremellen: When you start getting into like San Francisco and areas like that it is higher like $20.00 a square foot. In places like Albuquerque it is like maybe four dollars a square foot. This area dictates a high cost. This area isn’t what it was 30 or 40 years ago when this neighborhood center was proposed and what have you. At the same time I feel sort of bad for these residents that they haven’t had a supermarket for 15 years and they made valid points. When they came to this city they deserved to have it. Unfortunately they got Albertson’s and Albertson’s is absolutely one of the worst operated grocery stores in the whole entire state of California. As a result Safeway and Whole Foods have really been able to capture the share of markets. What that has actually also done is put a lot of pressure on the independents like Mike Stone and Andronico’s and the Molly Stone’s of this world. So for them to make a profit they have to be Page 43 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 better than Safeway and better than Whole Foods and they have been having a hard time doing it. I have seen a lot of deals lately fall through and unfortunately Safeway has really been taking over the market share. So it is hard to say what would be the right size at this center. You guys are going to have to make a tough decision. Chair Holman: I think there are a couple more questions for you. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: In your analysis did you take into account that this would be the closest grocery store probably all of Barron Park and all of Ventura neighborhood and the neighborhoods that are east of Waverley? Mr. Tremellen: That is exactly what we do. We build what we call a gravity-forecasting model, which is based on distance, and it is based on the population and how it best serves the population. So it is the closest store to these people. That is where it takes in the bigger the store gets the more density it will pull in, okay? There is a lot of density around this neighborhood. So it does absolutely serve those neighborhoods well. But you go a mile in either direction you have another full service supermarket. Most supermarkets these days want to be fairly sizable and what have you but you take what you can get. Commissioner Keller: The second question that I have is I have read some things from the applicants with regard to talking to people like Molly Stone’s and say would you like to put a supermarket at Alma Plaza, talking to Safeway or Piazza’s and say would you like to put up a supermarket at Alma Plaza? Would it be reasonable that somebody who already had a store in Palo Alto would want to add one at Alma Plaza or would they tend to want to depress competition and not want to have a store there? Mr. Tremellen: A little bit of both. Right now in the supermarket world there are not that many players. You have the Wal-Mart Super Centers of the world that are capturing 40 percent of the grocery potential market share these days. You have Kroger, you have Safeway, and Albertson’s is going out of business. The niche operators like Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods are doing very well because they are not going after this but overall the conventional supermarket environment has really taken a hit over the last 15 years. So like I said there are not that many players. Now, Safeway when they build a store they just cannibalize themselves and sometimes they are willing to do that and sometimes they are not. It really depends. Say for example Piazza’s learned that someone else was very interested they might step up to build a store to keep, not losing the dollars, but keep them to themselves at the expense of.cannibalizing their existing store. Those are really based on what those grocery operators are willing to do, willing to accept. They might think well you lcnow Molly Stone’s might say we are happy with our store that we have in the Downtown area and we don’t really want to build another store here. We feel we can compete with our one store and what have you. So that is a big issue. I have seen especially Safeway in general have cannibalized their own sales just to get more increased share of markets but smaller stores probably aren’t willing to do that. They can’t afford it. They did want me to mention that Molly Stone’s did take a look at this survey that we did and they said based on this income they couldn’t do it. You know there are other people that could 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 be interested. It takes some time to calculate and figure out whether it is profitable. My report doesn’t talk about profitability it just gives what a retailer could do. Chair Holman: I think we have another question for you. Vice-Chair Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: You mentioned earlier that you had been asked to look at a store that was about 25,000 square feet, is that correct? Mr. Tremellen: Where? At the subject property? Vice-Chair Lippert: Correct. Mr. Tremellen: Yes. Vice-Chair Lippert: There are deed restrictions that are on this site however that limits any -- well I can read them to you. No part of the property conveyed hereby shall be used as a supermarket which shall be defined as a store or department containing more than 18,000 square feet of ground floor area including aisle space and storage primarily devoted to retail sales of food for off premises consumption. The restriction contained herein shall run with the land and shall benefit the seller and its successors, assignees, and affiliates. Mr. Stone: With all due respect, my client... Vice-Chair Lippert: Excuse me? Mr. Stone: I’m sorry he is my expert so if you don’t mind I was the one who charged him with this survey. With respect to the issue you raised .... Vice-Chair Lippert: May I finish my question? Mr. Stone: I thought you had, sorry. Vice-Chair Lippert: What I am trying to get to is where is the breaking point? Where is it no longer viable to have a store there that is less than 25,000 square feet if that is what your study is based on? Mr. Tremellen: Again, we can’t really say that. Of course as a store gets bigger the law of diminishing returns increases. The sales increase at a decreasing rate. Okay? But I know it says no more than 18,000 square feet but you are talking about rezoning a whole entire property to make it half residential so that kind of throws some of the zoning things out the window in my opinion. Chair Holman: Just to be clear. There is a deed restriction on the property so even if we rezoned it and this is a new zoning process it is a deed restriction on the property so we can’t affect that. Page 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 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 Mr. Stone: With all due respect that is a legal question, which is not really within Mr. Tremellen’s expertise. Mr. Tremellen generates gross sales projections for grocery stores. We took a look at the 20,000 to 25,000 square foot model because that is what has historically been an element of the neighborhood serving retail center as defined by the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan speaks of a store of that size. We wish to provide you with information to that extent. Mr. McNellis has stated previously that the sole purpose of the deed restrictions was to protect the Albertson’s on California Street. So that is a complicated legal question, which is not for tonight. Mr. Larkin: Let me just respond to the deed restriction question. We could overcome the deed restrictions but we would have to be willing t buy the property and the City is not willing to do that so the deed restrictions are limits that are imposed that we can’t overcome. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, did you have one more question? Commissioner Garber: Absolutely not. Let’s move on, please. Chair Holman: Okay. The next speaker is John Grant to be followed by Rachel Samoffto be followed by Don Douglas. Mr. John Grant, Palo Alto: So far these last ten speakers have said pretty much what I would say. I want the site to be primarily retail. Contrast to an earlier speaker who said he lived in the area for 20 years and never went to Alma Plaza I have lived here for 40 years and did all of my grocery shopping at Alma Plaza. So my wife and I were very disappointed when the store closed. I would like to point out some flaws in the developer’s plan. Looking at some of the drawings there are two one-way streets, I think these streets are quite narrow, and it seemed like that could be quite a problem for fire fighting equipment to get down there. So that seems like a very serious flaw. Another flaw is the amount of parking. You are going to have to build up a gate or something to keep the people from the next-door apartments to keep them from continuing to park there. So it seemed like what you are going to have to do have any reasonable parking for the people that want to use the store is you are going to have to have some time limit on the parking, which means you have to have a meter maid running out there several times a day monitoring the parking lot. I suspect that would end up being quite expensive. Of course another little detail I saw in the plan is they show the semi-truck parked on the south end of the building. I think if you were to cutout a little paper cutout of that you would find that it couldn’t come down that driveway and get into that position if there are any cars parked in that south end of the parking lot. Those trailers are fairly long and they just don’t drive around like your car. If the merchant had to get his delivery in smaller vehicles then that is going to raise the price of his materials if they have to make two or three deliveries instead of one. So I think that is another serious flaw in the system. That is about all I have to say. 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Holman: Thank you so very much. Rachel Samoffto be followed by Don Douglas to be followed by Herb Borock. Again, if you could come forward that would be helpful. Ms. Rachel Samoff, Palo Alto: Hi. I am here as the Chair of the Palo Alto Childcare Advisory Council and I want to address the issue of a public benefit that makes sense for this project. We have been working since the early 1980s on high quality, accessible, affordable childcare in Palo Alto-and we work with developers in the past. As a matter of fact, Jim Baer in 1991 contributed $150,000 to establish a childcare trust fund, which is now worth close to $300,000. Our current focus in our committee is on the affordability issue. We have very high quality childcare in Palo Alto. It is extremely pricey and as we struggle to keep our community even more diverse than it is in terms of economic resources affordability for childcare is a real issue. I am not at all qualified nor am I interested in talking about the appropriate mix of housing and retail. I leave that to plenty of other people who are. I do think that the consideration of some contribution in support of our struggle to make childcare more affordable in Palo Alto is appropriate as this project goes forward. The building of the BMR units fits quite nicely into trying to make at least some childcare slots affordable in Palo Alto. So I am hoping that that can be part of the discussion as this project goes forward. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. Don Douglas to be followed by Herb Borock to be followed by Betsy Allyn, who I think I saw just leave. Don Douglas apparently is not here. Herb Borock. Mr. Herb Borock~ Palo Alto: Good evening Chair Holman and Commissioners. The site is currently a Planned Community zoned site. A Planned Community zone is a site-specific zone so each Planned Community zone is a different zone district. This is being proposed as a Planned Community zone but it is not being proposed as a Planned Community zone because there already is one. It is being proposed as a Planned Community zone because the applicant doesn’t want to use the site development regulations of any of the general zone districts. For example this is a Land Use Map designation of Neighborhood Commercial you would normally use a Neighborhood Commercial zone. So in deciding whether this concept is a good one or a bad one you should be comparing it to what would be the general zone you would expect in this land use designation. There was discussion at the beginning of the meeting about the choices that you have but nobody read into the record the Municipal Code section that says what choices you have. Instead of listening to someone’s interpretation they should be read into the record. I believe that you have two choices. You can say that this is a good concept and send it onto the Architectural Review Board or you can say it is a bad concept and it goes to the City Council. I don’t believe there is any authority for you to attach conditions and depending upon what the conditions are if there are certain conditions it goes to the ARB and if there are other conditions it goes to the Council. That doesn’t exist. That choice doesn’t exist. It is either a concept that you send to the ARB or it is a concept that is no good and you send it to the Council. There was some talk about the train tracks or the applicant saying the train tracks are a barrier. I know when there was a viable store with Lucky’s I spent time there on a number of occasions over the years with legal conditions that anyone in the county could sign. The market area Page 47 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 included a lot of people from Los Altos. That is for the 17,000 square foot grocery store at Lucky’s. There was mention of a Tentative Map application that isn’t subject to the Quimby Act conditions that Palo Alto has adopted but that isn’t the Tentative Map that would be part of this application because the lot sizes are different. So you can’t have a like a bill in the legislature where you just use the same number and change the content. The Tentative Map for this project is a new Tentative Map application and would be subject to the Quimby Act, The BMR units have been discussed but you don’t have before you any BMR agreement. The BMR agreement setting forth sizes and prices and rents and future sale prices and terms and conditions are all part of a complete application. You have an incomplete application before you. You need a signed BMR agreement before you as part of an application. This project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act but the City failed to provide the required notice and public review period with respect to the Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. I have a letter before you at places this evening that describes that. Essentially when you have a Mitigated Negative Declaration it gives the applicant an opportunity to agree to make changes to a project to mitigate significant effects. They have to do that before there is a public notice of the Mitigated Negative Declaration being available and that didn’t happen here. The document was noticed review starting February 16 and the applicant’s agreement was February 27. That violates the California Environmental Quality Act. That noticing has to start all over and so the only choice I think you have is to continue the meeting and leave the public hearing open because there is a flawed process under the environmental review. The failure of the applicant to sign the Mitigated Negative Declaration and agree to those conditions at the time of public noticing meant there was only one choice for the Staff and that was insist on an Environmental Impact Report. That is the choice. The choice is either the applicant agrees to the mitigations before the public can look at the Mitigated Negative Declaration or the only way to deal with it is with an EIR. So I suggest that you fix that problem. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Commissioner Sandas has a question for you, Mr. Borock. Commissioner Sandas: Actually not for Mr. Borock. I would like to ask the Staff to speak to what Mr. Borockjust talked about in terms of violating CEQA and so forth. Chair Holman: Do we want to let the public finish spealdng and then do that or what is your pleasure? Commissioner Sandas, do you have a preference? Commissioner Sandas: I would kind of like instant gratification. Chair Holman: You want the answer now, okay. If Staff could respond. Page 48 13 14 15 16 17 18¯19 21 22 23 26 27 28 ~ i,’ !:i 30. 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 42 43 44 45 1 Mr. Williams: Okay. First of all CEQA does not reqtiire that the applicant sign any document 2 indicating that. The applicant was aware of these mitigation measures. We were aware that they 3 did not have a problem with these mitigation measures. We typically try to get something from 4 the applicant and we just didn’t have it at the beginning of that review process so we got it later 5 on. The applicant was aware of those and that was not an issue. Mr. Borock also mentioned that 6 the document wasn’t signed by the Director, that again it is required that we provide notice, it is 7 not required that the document be signed by the Director. The notice was signed by the Director 8 and typically the way we work it this is a draft document to you. The Director signs the 9 document once it is approved and then sent on and recorded with the Notice of Determination. 10 11 12 Mr. Larldn: The only thing that I would add is that the Commission doesn’t make a determination on a Mitigated Negative Declaration the Council does. So you are not actually taking action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Chair Holman: We do recommend though, do we not? Mr. Larkin: You recommend but don’t take action. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert I think you had a follow up. Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes. With regard to the Tentative Map not really aligning with the proposal here and the whole issue with the Quimby Act where does that lie? Mr. Larldn: It is not before you tonight but it is something that will be discussed when the Tentative Map comes back. Chair Holman: Okay. Mr. Larkin: The Tentative Map is not yet before the Planning and Transportation Commission. It is something that will be addressed at the Staff level and those questions will be answered before it comes back to you. Chair Holman: IfI might there is a question about that though. If this were subject to the Quimby Act it would affect the open space, which is land use. Mr. Larldn: Yes, but again the Tentative Map isn’t before you so can make a determination but we would have to make a determination. If we determine that the Quimby Act does apply to this Tentative Map then it is how do you apply the open spaces included here and that will all be part of the Tentative Map discussion. Mr. Williams: I just want to add that this is a Planned Community project. You have discretion to determine the adequacy of the open space in any event. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. 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 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: But one of our reference points would be what would be mandated if it were not a PC and the applicant is claiming that the open space is all public benefit we need the information that would allow us to determine what is the net amount of open space that is public benefit not the gross because there would be some common open space requirement of parkland requirement in any event. So how do we do that? Mr. Emslie: You make the request of Staff and we give you what the Quimby Act would require in this case and you use it as a benchmark in your deliberations. Mr. Williams: We actually have provided you a memo today of what the Quimby Act would require if it does apply to that. It is the memo that Beth and Zariah sent out this afternoon that has that information in it. Commissioner Burt: I will try to find it among many. Chair Holman: Thank you, and thank you for the question Commissioner Sandas. Dennis Meechic to be followed by Karen Kalinsky to be followed by Doug Moran. Is Dennis here? It looks like not. So Karen Kalinsky to be followed by Doug Moran to be followed by Jbnnifer Hinton. Ms. Karen Kalinsk~/, Palo Alto: Hi I live about halfa block from the Alma Plaza and I have lived there for 24 years. I would like to echo the sentiment of some other speakers and also some comments made in yesterday’ s San Jose Mercury by Patty Fisher. They relate to the land use and the gone forever issue. Although the question of how much retail space will be profitable can be debated I believe the more important question for the Commission is how much of the land should be converted to residential use. The Comprehensive Plan as I looked at it online lists Alma Plaza among the neighborhood commercial centers of Palo Alto with the primary function being retail use although some residential land uses permitted. The portion of Alma Plaza proposed in today’s plan from the developer looks like it has about two-thirds of the land allocated to residential use. I urge the Commission to recommend a limitation of the residential land use to no more than one-fourth to one-third of the land because once land is converted from commercial use to residential use it is gone forever for future commercial use. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. The next card is from Doug Moran and then I have a card from Jennifer Hinton and unless there are two Jennifer Hintons such that there are two Ms. Kellers I think is perhaps a duplicate. So Doug Moran to be followed by Deborah Ju to be followed by Lawrence Clark. Mr. Doug Moran, Palo Alto: Hello Commissioners. I live in the Barron Park neighborhood. A lot as already been said so this will be simple. In preparing for this I looked at the transcript of the prescreening hearing and the five Commissioners who were on the Commission then said a lot of what needed to be said and a lot of the complaints and objections to this project were very well laid out by you five at that time. So I will just kind of hit some of the high points. 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 44 45 46 There has been talk about changed conditions since the zoning plan went in. I was part of the Comprehensive Plan workshops that led to this. They were based upon a concept known as new urbanism. Palo Alto wasn’t an early adopter but we weren’t a late adopter. Those principles are still very active now if not even stronger and more widely accepted. One of the things I learned in a variety of these workshops and other workshops on retail and dealing with retail people on various commissions to improve retail in Palo Alto is retail loves retail. You have to have a critical mass. Commissioner Keller referred to that. Last June I wrote a guest opinion on this thing and I entitled it, "Is It A Neighborhood Center or A Strip Mall?" I was being kind because I don’t think the proposal is quite large enough to be termed a strip mall. It is kind ofhalfa strip mall or a quarter of a strip mall. I would urge you to reject this that you don’t have enough retail there to have a functioning center or commercial area. The theory behind having a center was not just convenience for neighbors but it was also community building. That is the place that neighbors meet, they form colmections, and in our busy lives we don’t just randomly drop in on each other any more. Except for Fry’s I now meet my neighbors more often in Mountain View than I do in Palo Alto in terms of the commercial districts. A lot of us note this as well, see you again in Mountain View. The other aspect of this is that it is trip reduction. Looking at the amount of retail means - one of the ideas of commercial in the neighborhood is trip reduction. If you don’t have a lot of places where you can do trip combining you won’t get real trip reduction and people will tend not to use the place. The magnet store draws most of it but the small stores add the convenience that help support the magnet store and a number of my neighbors have noted that where they shop for groceries isn’t their primary destinations. They have meetings at coffee shops and they stop at the grocery store on the way home or the way there to get things. So it is these other stores that often determine trips. The developer’s consultant during the prescreening mentioned a trend that many of my neighbors confirm that is that people are making fewer trips to the mega stores. They go there for big purchases but they do a lot of fill in purchases at nearby small stores. This center serves that convenience. I find putting the apartments above the front store objectionable. In essence you are asking for the apartments to be the sound wall from the train tracks to the rest of the community. As previous speakers noted talking about the railroad tracks as a barrier, yes they are a barrier, but if you look at the other barriers it is three times as far to the next closest grocery store in Mountain View. If you are going from my neighborhood, Barron Park, you cross the train tracks first but then you hit a bigger barrier, the traffic of the school super block. If you look at going to Mountain View you are also go through one of the most overloaded intersections in the city. So there are multiple barriers in the other directions. As Vice-Chair Lippert’s question on size I saw the property deed indicated that below ground or above first floor retail does encounter the 18,000 limit. So there is some ability to be larger. I think that is it. Thank you very much. Chair Holman: Thank you. Deborah Ju to be followed by Lawrence Clark to be followed by Dr. Beverly Bryant. 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 Ms. Deborah Ju, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am the Board of the Charleston Meadows Neighborhood Association, which is near Alma Plaza. Our Board has consistently over the years taken a strong position in favor of maintaining this site for predominantly neighborhood serving retail use. Alma Plaza is designated in our City’s Comprehensive Plan as a neighborhood serving retail center. The many neighborhoods surrounding Alma Plaza are in great need of retail services meeting our everyday needs. We need a grocery store, a coffee shop, a dry cleaners, a post office, a florist, a bakery, a bagel store, a hardware store, a restaurant, etc. The pittley amount of retail that is proposed in this site does not meet the daily needs of the many neighborhoods around there. Mr. McNellis is proposing an undersized grocery store and such a small amount of other retail space there could not be enough vitality to keep the center going. Without enough synergy these businesses will fail, retail will be shuttered up, and we will lose all retain services there. If Alma Plaza is converted to predominantly housing there is nowhere to pickup the slack. I realize that housing is more profitable than retail but the current owner bought a retail center knowing its longstanding use and its Comp Plan designation. He is now attempting to make a windfall profit by flipping it to housing and the question is will the City allow him to do this? You should lay to rest the argument that this is a poor site for retail. The proximity to so much housing and the lack of other retail services makes this a perfect site. Do not be fooled by data about the past ten years. The previous owners ran the Plaza so far down it was unpalatable to shop there. We should not reward them for that now. Nor is the lack of a traffic light a serious problem. I shop all the time at Town & Country and it is very successful. There is no light at the driveways where you turn left onto either Embarcadero or E1 Camino. This is the same thing. These are red herring arguments by a developer who is looking for a windfall profit, plain and simple. This is a time for wise land use planning. There are hundreds of new housing units coming into this area but no new retail space. Good planning requires balanced growth. We should be building more local retail services to meet the needs of the large influx of new residences not giving away retail space. If you allow Mr. McNellis to flip this site to housing there are no undeveloped parcels to replace it. We will lose this retail space forever at the same time that we have a greater need for retail space a huge need for more tax generating retail services. Think of the impact your decision will have on the Comp Plan goal ofwalkable community. Please vote no on any zoning change that would allow a project here that is not predominantly retail. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Lawrence Clark to be followed by Dr. Beverly Bryant to be followed by Tom Jordan. Mr. Lawrence Clark, Palo Alto: Hi I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I don’t live anywhere near Ahna Plaza but I have lived in Palo Alto for almost 25 years in the same house. My wife and I have traveled down Alma and that has been an eyesore ever since I can remember. I have no affiliation. I don’t even know the developer. But I want something done there. It looks - the opportunity cost that that location has cost is not measured by anybody here but that has been an Page 52 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 eyesore for as long as I have been in Palo Alto. Trying to mince about the legalistic requirements whether one piece of paper was signed before another in an effort to stall this thing most people want something done. I see a lot of advice being given by people who are not actually investing their own money. This guy looks like he is investing his own money. He has found a way to leverage the value of the homes so that you can get some retail. Really guys, when you buy bulk stuff you are going to Costco. What you need there is something that is convenient and you can fill in as somebody said. That is what I think you really ought to be doing here and you really ought to rise above all the nitpicking that is being done that I have observed tonight. One point I do want to make and it is a follow up to sort of this economic advice by people who are not investing their money. I have watched Edgewood Shopping Center fall into shambles and it has become derelict and dilapidated. I don’t see any reason for the City of Palo Alto to force developers to place retail establishments including a large grocery store in a location nobody wants to shop except perhaps those people that are proximate to it. Yesterday I saw that Art 21 is vacant over here. The Edge coffee shop is closed. There are two shops on Alma between Blockbuster and the now defunct art store. There is an arts and crafts floral place down the street from there. The only places that are viable on Alma are Ace Hardware and the place I don’t like my daughter to go to, she spends too much money. But they have frontage on a side road. Alma has not been a viable place for any shopping center. So I think there is wisdom in this plan. I think somebody who is betting their own money is telling you that this is a way that it can get done. As a disinterested, no dog in this fight kind of a guy I am hoping you guys will see it through. Thanks. Chair Holman: Thank you. Dr. Beverly Bryant to be followed by Tom Jordan to be followed by Norm Carroll. Dr. Beverly Bryant, Home Builders Association of Northern California, San Jose: Thank you very much Chairman Holman and members of the Commission. I am the Executive Director for the Southern Division of the Home Builders Association of Northern California. I come here really on the BMR issue and I have a book that I would like to give each one of you ifI could, also there is one for the Planning Staff, which you probably have consulted. I just wanted to give you a little background and then tell you how I think your deliberations tonight should consider BMR. Our organization consists of homebuilders and the home builders have traditionally not like BMR ordinances because of course they are costly to the builders themselves. On the other hand we realize very clearly that there are a lot of people in the community that we need to have the housing that is affordable in the community. We spent a lot of time a couple of years ago realizing that we were spending money opposing inclusionary zoning via a group called the Non Profit Housing Association of which I think the organization which spoke earlier is probably a member, they were opposing our opposition. It was ridiculous. So we went to them and said how can we work together? How can we make housing happen? How can we make affordable housing happen? How can we make housing happen? There is a tremendous lack of housing in this Bay Area, 20,000 units a year are lost. We have problems in terms of employers not being Page 53 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 able to house employees, schools not being able to hire teachers. What is a result, what you are looking at there, and it is pretty simplified but it is really stuff that we both agree on is that affordable housing is necessary and there are lots of ways of doing it. Just sitting here tonight thinking about what this Planning Staff has done and working with the Non Profit Association in Palo Alto tells me that your city has been very creative. A lot of cities look a t this problem and they say, okay, we want like for like and we only want them spread around the community. What you have here is a proposal for 14 BMR units that will permit teachers, people like myself, who years ago made the kinds of salaries and probably today are far ahead of that but you really need teachers or other people to live close to where they work. This project actually is representative of something I think that is important in this community and in other communities. If I could get many communities in the Bay Area, and I represent our organization in five counties, to look at this I think that they would say that this is a model that you should follow. So that is the only thing I want to say is that a project like this set up the way it is, providing retail and providing housing, will also provide 14 units of affordable rental housing which in the course of the 59 years that agreements go on will be passed from group to group, family to family to family or individual to individual permitting those people to build up enough money so that they can some out of the rental housing as most of us did many years ago, or I did many years ago, and buy a home of their own. So thank you very much. I hope that you will consider it as a very good project to do this particular thing. Thank you. Chair Hohnan: Thank you. Tom Jordan to be followed by Norm Carroll to be followed by Edie Keating who is our final speaker. Mr. Tom Jordan, Palo Alto: Madam Chair, members of the Commission. I have lived in Palo Alto since 1965. In my view this is a narrower and a simpler question. They are asking for a zone change to Planned Community but any change that they would be entitled to would have to be consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. Your Comprehensive Plan makes it specifically clear by naming it that this is a neighborhood shopping center. That immediately means that although a PC would be possible it would have to be a PC that would be consistent with a neighborhood shopping center and what you are presented with is not. Whatever your specific requirements were you have it zoned neighborhood centers and whatever would be consistent with that zone they could fashion that into a PC but they have not. Therefore, it seems to me you are often told by Staff over here that you may only recommend, you can’t act, you can’t direct, all of which is true, but that also means that all you have in front of you is does this application comply if you give them a PC with the general plan, the Comp Plan? It does not. Therefore, you have to say no. All this economic analysis about grocery stores, houses, BMRs is good but in some ways is irrelevant. This isn’t to say that the plan is always built out of stone. There are processes to change plans but what is going on and has been going on for some time in this town is that people just ignore what the general plan is, by people I mean developers, applicant, and sometimes city councils, and it is just because some developers can bust the zones, can get what they want in spite of the Comp Plan and in spite of the existing zoning that they keep trying. One of the frustrating things about zoning it only says what you can’t do. You can’t make people do and that is the way it should be. But that is the characteristic. So the only way you will zone something for the good Page 54 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 of the community, because that is how zoning is set, and be sure they do it is establish a culture in which your zone is all you are going to get and don’t come in and ask for any more because we will say no. Now some people may immediately say but we may as well say no because we think the City Council is going to say no but please don’t think that way. You are the Planning Commission and you should give your advice on what you think is right. If the City Council wants to do something on its own that is between them and the voters and that is not for you to say. You are the Planning people and you are the ones who should respect planning because that is all you do. So please just vote the way you think is right because you have some people on the City Council who get impatient like the speaker a few before me. They say for God’s sakes do something. The situation is as I say one reason it has been sitting is because people are trying to bust zoning. Once they know that they can’t bust zoning then what will happen? The market economy will take over and that property will sell to somebody because they will pay for it that will build what is permitted. If in fact after awhile no one does buy it then you are going to be amending the general plan. Right now what is in from of you is the last general plan amendment which was only in 1998 and says this is a neighborhood shopping center and as best I can see the square footage was 55,500 feet and that is all ground floor. So what you should do is compare what the prior Planning Commission said, neighborhood shopping at 55,500 with what is ground floor here. I think it doesn’t comply and you should say no. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you, Mr. Jordan. Norm Carroll is next of San Jose Mercury fame and followed by Edie Keating. Mr. Norman Carroll, Palo Alto: I walked in this building about three hours ago to address the Human Relations Commission so apparently I am way at the wrong meeting. Marlene Prendergast has left. She and I have had discussions on the difference between affordable and attainable housing and have banged our heads on the wall leaving the same meetings. She is my landlord so that is kind of a cool thing because it was never over us personally. Nuts and bolts stuff. Access to adjacent properties to Alma Plaza, Stanford Terrace Apartments they use that driveway with that median strip down Alma. They use that driveway. I walk by there. I live eight minutes from my door to there from that driveway, you can tell where it is paved where the property line is but there is no other access except when you are coming north and you cut in illegally behind pedestrians who are walking northbound. That is the only other way into that property. So there needs to be a median cut into the driveway there no matter what else happens with this that needs to happen as a safety issue. If there is a fence put up for construction there is going to be people hurt one way or another because people are going to try and jump that median walking or driving. That is straight up as a person who experiences that on a regular basis. Then there is the raccoon that pops up in front of the dental office that looks both ways before he crosses Alma. Maybe somebody ought to look out for him too. That is another kind of side thing. Me personally at this point I wouldn’t be really upset with a 7-11 there except 7-11 ’s don’t take food stamps. Like I said it is eight minutes from my house to there. It is almost half an hour to get to Safeway. Somebody said there was an Albertson’s that just opened up in Mountain View I Page 55 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 am thinldng that they are probably guessing that it was the Whole Foods. Because of them and Trader Joe’s and the Safeway across the street that Albertson’s on California Street in Mountain View actually closed. So maybe that aspect that somebody threw in there is a red herring on their part, I am not sure. Like I said my notes are a little awkward because I am at the wrong meeting. Somebody said high density on Alma is not necessarily a good thing. Stretch it all the way from Alma Plaza down to Embarcadero and find a single family dwelling. I defy anybody. I walked that this morning to get to a bus to go to a meeting in San Jose. I had to be there at 8:30 in the morning and there is not a single family dwelling all the way from E1 Carmelo all the way down to Embarcadero. There ain’t one. It is all high density, six, four, eight, ten units at minimum. You go north up to East Meadow it is the same thing. Of course you get to the Stanford Terrace multiplex - movie theaters wish they had as many screens as there are apartments in that complex that is right next-door. So 18 more units next to 100 and something is that really going to be like a slam upside your head? It’s like I have ten toes and I get one more. Is that really going to be that big of a deal to have halfa dozen or 14 units next door to a complex that big? Maybe the big complex should go away so that there is not so much in the neighborhood. Just a guess. Chair Holman: Thank you, Mr. Carroll. EdieKeating is our final speaker this evening. Ms. Edie Keating, Palo Alto: I am very interested in the outcome of this because I live very close to Alma Plaza but strangely I am here without too much passion about any of the possible outcomes but i am again very interested. So I would just like to mn through a few of them. One possible outcome is thriving retail and the whole place just filled with thriving retail. I think that would be really cool if that could happen. I wonder how long it would take for that to happen and I have been kind of waiting and I have been there a long time. So there is a probability to put on that that I am not sure about. Another possibility is pretty close to what we have now is it is a vacant lot. That we don’t move forward with any project, we keep the vacant lot, and that is not so awful either. It is what we’ve had. I go to Midtown to shop. I go other places. It is really not a disaster to have nothing there. Another possibility is we would have some more housing and a little bit of retail but not the full retail. I would be able to walk to buy milk again that would be really nice. It doesn’t have the full benefit of the full thriving retail but not bad. We have heard that if this isn’t kept as neighborhood retail that we will have the demise of walkable neighborhoods and I think that is an exaggerated statement. I still am able to walk to some things from where I am. I live at the comer of Alma and East Meadow. Also not that I am using it a lot but for people who need to use it the Palo Alto Shuttle stops at that comer and will take people to Safeway in Midtown. We have heard that there may be housing by the tracks. I live in housing by the tracks and I enjoy it. I think a lot of the people on Alma are just fine with the housing by the tracks. For Page 56 1 2 3 4 We have heard that there may be traffic problems. I am concerned about that although I think 5 that it wouldn’t again be a disaster. The plans that are put forward one of the important things 6 for people in the professional building or in the housing where I live at the comer is if you are 7 parked on the frontage road and what you really want to do is go south on Alma, how are you 8 going to do that? With the proposed plans what I do now is go into the vacant Albertson’s lot, 9 do a U-turn and come out, and I am turning left onto Alma and then I am heading south on Alma. 10 With the current plans I think I just have a little bit more convoluted, twisted parking lot to go 11 into but if I really wanted to do that I would go into .the parking lot, I would find some way to do 12 the U-turn, I would come out of it and I would do my same old thing. So I don’t think there are 13 any disasters there. some people it is not the right choice. I think for many people it is a very viable choice. It is not the noise problem that you might think. 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 We have heard that oh dear, there may be more housing. I generally support more housing. We have heard the possible implications of that that without the retail there we would have a lot more trips because people wouldn’t be walking and so on. I think with the housing we lose some of the commute trips. We overall have a very high number of jobs compared to housing. So I think there is some benefit in terms of global warming and so on if we can reduce the commute trips. We heard that we may get the bad precedent of not following zoning, which I respect. I think one way around that since this is a PC is to get a really good public benefit. I don’t think we have heard it yet. I think that it will be good for developers to start not listing the required benefits as public benefits because we all know the difference. To get a really good public benefit that perhaps we haven’t heard yet I think might help make this an attractive project. Again, that vision that people have put forward of truly thriving retail for the whole place I could forgo the housing if you think that that’s really possible. So those are the things I hope you will consider. Thank you. Chair Hohnan: Thank you. Commissioners, it is a little after ten so we have been at it for a little over four hours. With Staff’s support/recommendation!comment what we might look at doing is getting our basic questions and comments out and continuing this meeting to a date certain. It is a very important matter and I think we need to be fresh, and we have also been given an awful lot of information tonight so if Staff would support that. Mr. Williams: Yes we would and we can currently schedule this for the March 28th Commission meeting date, which would be three weeks approximately. Chair Holman: So what we could do by asking our questions and making comments tonight, not on everything, but on some of the larger issues that would give the applicant time to respond to those, it would give the public time to comment. We have some people from the public who had come and left so they could speak at the next meeting since they haven’t already spoken. So if that is agreeable to everyone. Commissioner Tuma? Okay. Commissioner Burt, did you have a question? Page 57 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 1 2 Commissioner Burt: It was more that I briefly wanted to try to encourage the Commission to 3 take this opportunity that we have right now to give some input to the applicant. If one of our 4 objectives, or perhaps our primary objective between now and our next meeting on the subject, is 5 to see if we can move closer to agreement and be able to move this project forward then we have 6 to try in a pretty short period of time convey to the applicant what it would take to do that. I also 7 think that if the Commission is able to speak with close to a single voice the potential for having 8 a favorable outcome, not a perfect one but an improved outcome, is greatly enhanced. That doesn’t make that an easy task but that is why you get the big buck, Paula. That’s right, they took even that away. That was ldnd of the framework I wanted to encourage us to attempt to proceed within. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Commissioner Burt, you are suggesting that that happen this evening and then we return on the 28th.9 I am not clear on the timing piece that you are suggesting. Commissioner Burt: Yes, I am suggesting if it doesn’t happen this evening as late as it is then we are going to get to the next meeting and the applicant won’t have had the benefit of our input on what we are looking for in changes that would render this project one that could receive the support of the Commission. So that for me is the primary purpose that we have in the next less than an hour is to see whether we can do that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, you had a question. Commissioner Keller: Yes, I have a question for our attorney. The question is to follow up on the earlier questions with regard to the deed restriction. Now I understand that certain locations have had deed restrictions preventing certain nationalities or religions from living in Certain locations and that those deed restrictions were considered against public policy and therefore were inoperative. What I am wondering is if the City can determine that this deed restriction is against public policy and similarly inoperative? I am wondering the extent to which those approaches can be used short of the City purchasing the property to remove the deed restriction. Mr. Larkin: I don’t think they would be available because you would have to determine that grocery stores are a protected class of citizens and that is a tough call to make. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. I would like us to resolve if we could just real quick the process issue. Commissioner Garber: I was going to say that as well. i am probably the only one willing to continue but then I am sort of a nine/ten person and I will respect the desire of the Commissioners here. Process-wise does it make sense to do as Commissioner Burt has suggested and then come back? The next meeting you would then have the public forum again then you would have questions and then there would be additional discussion or how would that work? Page 58 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 Chair Holman: Maybe Staff would like to address this. I will but maybe Staff could. Mr. Emslie: Well, I think it could help facilitate the discussion because there were a number of requests for information that came up in the discussions. If there were additional information requests we would like to have you give them to us now so that we can a systematic response. We think that would save a great deal of time and you the Commission could focus in on its policy discussion after you got the information that you have asked for and I suspect will have other requests that will come out in this discussion. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I am sorry I may have interrupted you. What the Director is suggesting is slightly different than what Commissioner Burt is suggesting if I am understanding correctly. You are suggesting that we talk about our questions and then come back to answer. I think Commissioner Burt was suggesting that we talk about policy or .... Mr. Emslie: Yes, I am giving you what we would hope to get out of this as Staff. I would strongly encourage you to get out any of your policy issues tonight as was suggested. Most definitely think that is very important tonight. Chair Holman: I need some clarity on another piece of this. As we ask any questions that we might have regarding some of the basic questions, some of the bigger issue questions like policy and that sort of thing, if we give those comments individually we may or may not have a lot of common comments. What I am thinking you don’t want to have happen is - it seems to me that we would not be prepared tonight to take any action because there is too much information that is fresh, maybe questions are going to still be residing with each of us or most of us, so you are not looking for a motion or that kind of consensus. I just want to make that very, very clear that that’s not what you are looking for. Mr. Emslie: Yes, I wouldn’t suspect that you would be able to do that given the amount of information you have asked for but we would certainly want to have opinions and comments of each of the Commissioners as well as some indication of what some of the land use issues, and we obviously know there is no binding nature of that but to hear how you feel about some of the issues raised this evening. Chair Holman: So I think as we go through this process we may get somewhat close to what you are looking for Commissioner Burt but we are not wanting to take action tonight because it seems premature. Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I was going to make a brief comment to try to bring this discussion to a close. The only thing I haven’t heard anybody say tonight is that they want this thing to stay as is. So I think the more that we can do tonight to ask the questions that we need to ask, give some indication to the developer as to what we think we would be able to support without a formal motion but I think in talking through our questions and sort of telegraphing what we are thinking individually I think the developer will have an opportunity between now and the next time we Page 59 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 come back together to say this is what I can live with and perhaps at that time we can come to a strong consensus if not unanimity in terms of the proposal that would then be before us. So I think that is what I would like to see us accomplish tonight and I think that is what Commissioner Burt was also saying. Chair Holman: I think it is kind of what both of us were saying probably. So if there are no other questions about process, Commissioner Burt would you care to start? Is there a question still down here? Okay. Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Having struggled with this project for nine years I am recognizing that in the interests of attempting to have something that is acceptable and not what I and many members of the community would ideally like to have we have to look at what is that compromise. We could try to hold out for x-number of more years and perhaps have a developer that would be more willing to be guided by our Comprehensive Plan but I am going to suggest some parameters that are just in a broad sense what I think I would be willing to compromise on. First I think that the retail is still too small. I think that the position that the Commission took at its last hearing is correct. At that time we thought that the smallest retail in a neighborhood center in the city was something over 30,000 square feet. What we see here tonight is that that was lower yet than what we had expected that they are all over 40,000 square feet. Midtown is over 100,000 square feet. So the Commission’s recommendation to allow something as low as 30,000 square feet is on the real low end of what would constitute a retail center and a neighborhood center. It would allow a moderately better critical mass of retail. It would allow the potential for even more true mixed use housing above a greater retail area and that could be at market rate and supply revenue for the developer. I think one of the problems is we really don’t have a mixed use project before us. We have something that is being described as a horizontal mixed use and we have two projects before us. We have three-quarters of it that is going to be peeled off and rezoned as a residential project and one-quarter that is a mixed use. So in addition to needing a greater balance so that the various aspects, I counted 12 goals, policies or programs in the Comprehensive Plan that address this center, and for the most this project proposal does not respond adequately to them. So in addition to increasing the retail I would also like to see a project that integrates the elements of a mixed use development truly and doesn’t make kind of a fagade of it. The retail area and the mixed use area should have a greater relationship to the transitional housing. I could live with, although I might not prefer it, something where the back third toward the residential were more reflective of the neighborhood and less of a mixed use development. It is not my preference but I think it is a compromise that might be able to be done. So I would like to see the front two-thirds be different, one-third that is a larger true mixed use area, one-third that is a residential that relates to that mixed use that has the good urban planning, new urbanism, that is the backbone of this Comprehensive Plan. I will just say we have an entire section of the Comprehensive Plan on these neighborhood centers. They are not incidental to what this plan is about they are integral. They were at the center of the whole concept of a walkable community, of small centers in our community. They Page 60 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 are not something that is a side thought. They are at the center of what this community said it was about in the Comp Plan. If we don’t believe in that we ought to change the Comp Plan but we can’t ignore it. So I am willing to compromise and those are kind of the parameters in which I would be willing to compromise. I wouldn’t be enthusiastic about it but that is sometimes what we are faced with is that we have to be willing to compromise. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas would you like to go next? Commissioner Tuma? Commissioner Tuma: Sure. I have a few questions of Staff and I normally like to do this but I think the math here is important for where we are going. I want to go through this document that we were given late this afternoon or this evening. The second page of it relates to comparison of previous and current Mixed Use Development Standards for Neighborhood Commercial (CN) for Alma Plaza. Just to make sure that I have got some things right here ifI am looking at this properly the maximum residential floor area under the current CN mixed use zoning standard is .5, which I believe would be approximately 92,000 square feet. Is that right? Ms. Bourne: That is correct. Commissioner Tuma: Okay. The calculation that you have done here that the proposed project is .54:1 which I believe comes to about 99,000 square feet which is the sum of the BMRs and the single family residences, correct? Ms. Bourne: That is correct. Commissioner Tuma: So we are looking at a difference there Of about 8,000 square feet and that is without the garages, is that correct? Ms. Bourne: I believe that is correct. Commissioner Tuma: I think as the applicant said earlier the garages come to a total of about 18,000 square feet so that would be a total of about 118,000 square feet if we were to include the garages in this context, right? Ms. Bourne: That is correct. Commissioner Tuma: Okay. So under CN, which I understand doesn’t necessarily apply here but it is a good guideline. The guideline would be about 92,000 square feet. This project is about 99,000 square feet without garages or 118,000 with. Then I want to look at the mixed use ground floor commercial floor area ratio which is supposed to be under the CN would be a minimum of 15 percent of the total project FAR or about 27,000 square feet, right? Mr. Williams: That is right. Page 61 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 Commissioner Tuma: Am I reading that right? And this project is proposing for ground floor 18,250 which would be about ten percent. Mr. Williams: That is correct. Commissioner Tuma: Okay, so the difference there is about 9,000 square feet or so. Okay. Just to give sort of sense of where I am on this I think that the CN numbers are pretty good for where we ought to wind up with this project. I think it there may be some flexibility, maybe a little bit less than that. There was a lot of thought that went into the CN and the standards there. I think that still as a PC but under CN guidelines we would be much closer to complying with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of what that designates for this particular shopping center and it is definitely something I could be very supportive. I am not as expert or as informed about sort of the layout and the transition of the houses as some others who are up here and I would like to here their comments on that. The ratio, something close to what CN calls for to me, I can see that is clearly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and sort of moving some of the space back and forth. I think one of the other opportunities here if we could move some more of it to retail potentially above the new additional retail we could have some more apartments and those wouldn’t necessarily need to be BMR apartments. I think if you had some market rate apartments above they would still be more in the affordable range and you would also have kind of an integration of BMR units and market rate units albeit separate from the single family you would still have more of an integration there. Based on some of the comments and things I have heard tonight to me that makes a lot of sense and would also give the developer an opportunity to sort of balance the project economically by having the market rate apartments above additional retail space. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: First I am pleased that the applicant is proposing to redevelop Alma Plaza. I think that it would be nice to have a new thriving retail center there as appropriate to the Comprehensive Plan. I am also pleased that the applicant is proposing that significant portions of the design be done to LEED Silver I think that is something that we want to encourage in the city. One of the things that I have been following over the years in terms of the development that has been proposed at Alma Plaza is there has been one consistent element of all of the retail that has been proposed when Albertson’s was proposing something, when Lucky’s was proposing something. It seems to me that a lot of the redevelopment involved a grocery store and a small amount of retail and some amount of housing. It seems to be a consistent story here that we only want a little bit of retail. At least the applicants in general have 0nly wanted a little bit of retail besides the grocery store. When it was a large grocery store it was a little bit of retail. When it was a small grocery store it was a little bit of retail and that troubles me. I think that in some sense a mixed use component should have enough other kinds of retail to satisfy this and not just a grocery store and a little bit of retail. I think if you look at the Charleston Center where Piazza’s is I realize that that has a lot more street access but I kind of like that. That is where I Page 62 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 1 do a lot of my shopping. It has a bunch of different stores there, a restaurant that I frequent, 2 Pete’s Coffee, and a grocery store. There is a bunch of different mix of things there and to me 3 that is my idea of a neighborhood center. So I think that between the time that this went before 4 the Commission and the Council and now the CN zoning was revised. In the process of revising 5 that Neighborhood Commercial zoning we did a couple of things. We said no standalone 6 housing that is our direction from the Council. The Council also gave us direction to make sure 7 there is a minimum amount of retail. So the Council has declared they want a certain amount of retail and that has been codified as .15 FAR for Neighborhood Commercial. If this Neighborhood Commercial spot that is described in the Comprehensive Plan, as Neighborhood Commercial is truly that when we have a PC zoning it doesn’t make sense to me to have less Neighborhood Commercial than. 15 FAR. It seems to me that that’s one of the interesting things of public benefit that the issue is that’s what people want is retail at that location. The next thing is I notice that the FAR for housing is not only. 15:1 according to the calculations of the FAR which includes the occupied portions of the residential as well as the .07 BMR which adds up to .54 but in fact there is a .10 approximately FAR for garages. So if you count the garage space you actually wind up with .64 FAR for the garages as part of the residential in single families plus the BMRs. That is .14 too high from the zoning that has always been in existence. I think that one of the questions I would like to have the answer to when this comes back to us next time is I would like to understand more about the extent to which the original Tentative Map is still operative and whether this application is considered to have proceeded the Quimby Act regulations or follow the Quimby Act regulations. The reason that is important to me is because the data here, the interesting thing is according to the sheet that we received today about the answers to our questions, the Quimby Act requires 12,402 square feet ofparldand according to this calculation that Staff did and an 8,904 square foot park is provided with is not quite 12,000, it is about 20 percent less, is provided as a public benefit, if the Quimby Act requires a certain amount of space, and I realize it may be in lieu fees versus providing the parkland or whatever because of how many units it is, that is a question, but the issue is that the numbers don’t jive there. Another part of the numbers that don’t jive from my point of view is this space that is used for 20 hours a week by the Pacific Art League and sometimes by the residents and sometimes by other people. It is not clear how that would be managed effectively by the Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Department considering that they are not onsite. I am not sure how they would enforce that or how they would provide the keys or whatever to that facility. It seems to be that including that in the commercial space doesn’t feel comfortable to me to include that in the commercial space. If you drive down Alma Street south of Oregon Expressway or south of Embarcadero the houses are very well setback from that. And as far as I can tell they do meet the 30-foot setback for that. If you look at the housing that is adjacent to that towards the north, the Stanford Villa, that housing is certainly setback. If you look at the properties that are to the south of there between the subject property and East Meadow those houses are setback in part due to the easement for the access road. So if you count the easement, which is actually part of their property, not City Page 63 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 land but actually part of their property, they are setback by 30 feet. So this thing would be zero lot line building, it would stick out, it might be helpful for retail but I am not sure - I don’t know how many people drive down Alma and say wow, there is a grocery store that I happen to see on the street, let me go into the lot there and drive. Most people know where it is and go there based on it. So I think that the 30-foot setback is something that I would have trouble with as well. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: Thank you. First of all I just want to thank everybody involved who are sitting here in the room tonight for your time and your effort and your patience with this project. Unfortunately I haven’t been on the Commission long enough to have been part of the early days but thank you for being here tonight. I have a couple of things. The first thing is a little bit of a procedural thing. One of our options as a Commission is to approve or disapprove with some recommendations and things that maybe the applicant could accept. One of the questions I have for the applicant is would you be willing to accept worldng with Mr. Reitman and Dr. van der Wilt on the prescriptive parking rights issue at the dental office? It sounded to me that Dr. van der Wilt hadn’t been part of the discussions on this and it seems prudent as a property owner adjacent to this parcel and especially with ingress and egress issues and parldng issues it would seem prudent that he be consulted and brought into the conversation. I am just wondering Mr. McNellis if that is in fact acceptable to you. For the record, he said, they already started that conversation two days ago. So back to my other comments. I think that Alma Plaza, the dereliction or the blight if you will at Alma Plaza is an opportunity for our community. It is an opportunity to create a vibrant and vital neighborhood center. We are getting a little closer in my opinion than we were 11 months ago. As my colleagues have already stated the notion of mixed use will work well at Alma Plaza and we are not really looking at a true mixed use project at this point. Personally I was disappointed in the little reduction in housing and the little increase in retail space. I don’t think that the developer was ever provided with quantifiable expectations on how much retail space or housing space, I could be wrong, you would have gotten that from the Council, certainly not us. After our the first meeting at the Planning Commission in April I thought that the Commission conveyed a pretty strong message about increasing the amount and variety of retail space for the surrounding neighborhood. As I said it wasn’t quantified but I am going to just throw out a quantifiable number and say 35,000 to 40,000 square feet of retail is something that I think we could as a community benefit by. I think that it would need to include a variety of neighborhood serving businesses. Mr. McNellis in his presentation tonight talked about a variety of businesses but I couldn’t see where they would all fit. I don’t have a problem at all with the size of the grocery store and what the grocery store you were talking about could sell was a full service market. I thought that that’s appropriate for the neighborhood. The one thing I don’t find appropriate is that the way the land is proposed to being used now with the grocery store out in front which I recognize is probably Page 64 1 the best place to put it. I am not questioning that but I am saying that the way that it is used now 2 doesn’t create an invitation to the rest of the surrounding community to come in and be a part of 3 the center. It is sitting right on Alma and whereas at present it is at the back of that piece of 4 property and the community is used to having access to the store and the retail and the 5 restaurants and so forth that have been there in the past. Having the buffer of dense housing 6 between, I don’t have my map out so I don’t know the streets behind, but Ramona and Alma 7 Plaza the way it is setup creates a buffer as far as I am concerned. It doesn’t create an inviting 8 gateway into the center. 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 Once again, I think that we have a unique opportunity to provide the entire community with an innovative neighborhood multi-use project. I am looking at you, Jim Baer, because I have seen other projects that you have been involved with that I have found to be so forward thinking and innovative and much more exciting if you will and that allow Palo Alto to really be a leader I guess you could say in some kind of development. So I was actually looking forward to seeing something a little bit more innovative tonight. I think I echo Commissioner Keller’s sentiment a LEED Silver building is just part of something that I think it is innovative and forward thinldng and sets our community in the forefront in sustainable building. I think the materials chosen are beautiful and I know that is not what we are here to talk about tonight. I am happy that the BMR has been taken into careful consideration and I really appreciated hearing from Marlene Prendergast as to why she thought that it was more important to have 14 rental units as opposed to six higher-end purchasable units. Two more things. I do support the idea of having more ground floor retail as I just mentioned and to the extent of 35,000 or 40,000 square feet. I think it is a wonderful idea. I don’t have any problem with putting condominiums on the second floor that are market rate condominiums. I have seen some designs for condominiums that are so high end and beautiful and luxurious that would fit right in with the rest of the Greenbriar homes. The public benefits, I will just comment that we really need some real public benefits thrown into this. I don’t know what they are at the moment. That’s it. Thank you very much for listening. Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I just want to say that there is nothing that I have heard from my colleagues that I am not in agreement with. I agree with everything that they have said here. I agree with all the questions that they have raised and just building on Commissioner Sandas’ last comment with regard to the public benefits I think it is real important that Staff flush out really what of these are public benefits and which is just I have to say it, smoke and mirrors, stating the obvious, stating what would apply to any project that would be built on this site. Stating that it is a public benefit is stating nothing and providing nothing. In some ways it is patronizing to me. Looking at the plan I am a little disappointed. I think you got some really good feedback from us. You may not agree with it but we gave you really good feedback at our initial presentation. City Council gave you different information but they also gave you really good comments as Page 65 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 well. I don’t see very much of what we have given you here in terms of feedback integrated into this plan. By that what I mean is that for instance I see this as being a disjointed plan. It is broken up into these blocks rather than something that sort of flows together. It is not a composition. I remember one City Council Member specifically saying they wanted to see a public green. That should be the centerpiece of this development. That should be where everybody in this community, in the housing as well as the shopping and the housing above, can congregate and come together. Instead it has been marginalized and shoved off to one corner of the site. Yes, you see it as you come in but it is not integrated into the site. The housing element for the people in the BMR units, they are on the second floor, you put a community room up there. Why isn’t the community room a house, a building, within the community that everybody can go out to and use? It is not integrated. I think of the applicant here digging in their heels and saying well, I can’t give you any more retail square footage. Okay, great. We can’t have a great big store but why not a bunch of smaller shops integrated throughout the development? A coffee shop, a bicycle shop, a dry cleaner, and they might not all happen right next to each other and there would be housing above it and it would be market rate housing or below market rate housing and slowly the pattern changes and becomes single family houses that look a lot like the buildings that were created that were both commercial and residential. Almost like Seaside. These pedestrian paths are not pedestrian paths they are alleys. This is their street. This is where the pedestrians are going to walk. The cars have more importance than the pedestrians in this. So I am just very disappointed by what I see here. IfI say any more I am just going to lose it. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I was going to lose it a little earlier this evening. I had argued for a slightly different proportion of retail to housing in the previous meeting and was out voted by my fellow Commissioners and I respect the direction of the Commission at that time. What I mean to say by that is I think it is important for us to find a way to give clear direction and to the degree that we can find a way to give direction and recommendation to the Council. I agree with Commissioner Burt on that topic. I also agree with Commissioner Tuma that CN is the right way to think about structuringthe PC. It is probably a little heavy on the housing and it is probably light on the retail. I do not have the fears that my other Commissioners do about increasing the amount of retail to get a community center or neighborhood center to work. I believe it can happen with the amount of retail that we are seeing here. Can it happen with a little bit more? Absolutely. Some other comments on this same topic of structuring the PC. With respect to Commissioner Sandas I struggle when I think about this site trying to support the amount of retail that you are imagining. Thirty thousand in my mind is a stretch for me and 45,000 1 think is beyond. The gravity analysis despite the confusion in which it was entered into in the public conversation today actually is the granddaddy of retail analysis. I have spoken about that at the previous meeting, I won’t go into it. The setback topic that Commissioner Keller had mentioned, I can understand where your concerns are in that. Although given the context of the site I think I am more interested in giving that space back to the backside to give that space to the public center, Page 66 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 and I will talk about that in just one moment, rather than the street where there is little benefit for it to be shared or utilized by the community. Is it abhorrent on the setbacks that are there on Alma? Yes, but I think I am willing to trade that for the benefit that it will give me behind the building. The topic of public benefit. The benefit of having the BMR units I think is real. I don’t think of that as a throwaway or as not a real benefit. So I support in particular because of the Housing Corporation’s interest in your proposal I support the way that you have arranged that BMR housing as apartments. I think it is a footnote to Staff to recognize what happens in that conversation should the Housing Corporation decide that it is too difficult for them to manage. How do we manage ourselves through that conversation if that becomes a reality? Still on the topic of public benefits, the real issue for me as a Commissioner that you have heard being spoken of up here and that was mentioned as part of the public conversation was what should it be? What should this parcel be? That is the vision. Let me state it in slightly different but very similar ways as Commissioner Lippert as has just done so. The big issue for me when I look at the Parcel Map is Parcel A. Parcel A is a small proportion, and to remind you that is the park, which public despite the fact that it may be maintained by an association its use is for the public. As it has been said before the project really exists in two pieces. The key here, the real public benefit, is the integration of these two pieces to result in a public center that can be shared, that can be walked to, that can be recognized as a place that is unique and supports the concept of a community neighborhood or a community center. Franldy, the other community centers don’t do a great job of that and this is a great spot to show how that is done. That I think will go a long way to quelling the issue of what it is people are getting when it is not getting all of the retail that some may have wanted, when it is getting some of the housing that it does want. For the Staff, part of what I am interested in learning in our next meeting is the conversation about dealing with the Comprehensive Plan and how the Comprehensive Plan has targeted this particular parcel to be all retail. We are clearly flying in the face of some of that, which isn’t to say we shouldn’t look for an opportunity to change that so that we square ourselves with the intention of the community. The conversation was entered into in the previous meeting that having the large amount of retail is very difficult to support for any number of reasons. Today’s economy, where the public/housing/retail/pendulum is, etc. versus the new economic gravities of Whole Foods or Safeway, etc. all drawing people away from this particular area. I think we need to wade through that issue so that we are not flying in the face of what the Comprehensive Plan is. I don’t think it is unsolvable I think it is just simply we need to make that happen. Those are my initial comments right now and if I have others I will interrupt you. Chair Holman: I would agree with I think it was Commissioner Lippert who said he hadn’t heard too much he didn’t agree with and I guess i would go there too. If we are talking about big picture we have talked so much about sustainability and greenhouse gases in this community and everywhere these days. Do we mean it or not? So for me there has to be more retail here. I have heard a variety of numbers here and I don’t know where I am going to come down on that but certainly in the range of the numbers that have been mentioned. There is no connectivity to the neighborhood. We brought this up last time. There is no connectivity to the neighborhood Page 67 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 via pedestrian!bicycle paths here, basic land use planning. I agree with the comments that Commissioner Lippert made too about it is disjointed and also with Commissioner Garber’s comments about the parcelization of it. It doesn’t feel like an organized, comprehensive if you will, development. It doesn’t feel like a place one would go to find community, either have your own community or go find community with others. I wasn’t going to say this but I decided to, Parcel D being separated off from Parcel C and I think the applicant said that they don’t think that building is necessarily going to be successful so they might want to sell it off. I know we have talked in the past about how one of the difficulties with having successful shopping centers is if you have multiple owners. If you have a single owner for the commercial part of it, the commercial shopping center portion of it, you have more control because the owner has more control. So I am distressed to see that as little retail as there is that part of it is being broken off separately. A mix of retail as I think Commissioner Sandas mentioned is good. When I look at this I see that a grocery store is an anchor in the neighborhood centers but what is it anchoring here? That is not really clear to me. We need other ground floor retail. I concur with the comments of others who have said the CN .15 is a minimum of what should be acceptable here and we talk about as Commissioner Burt did what the other centers are and that even falls way short of it but that is really a minimum. Going back to policy and an action that the Council took that we then followed through with with Staff is what this project currently does is actually go the opposite direction of what the direction was from Council to rezone four parcels that they didn’t want to flip from retail to strictly housing. This isn’t strictly housing but it is a majority of housing and that is really contrary to what the Council direction was for Palo Alto Bowl and the Summerwinds site and the two others that don’t come to mind right offhand. The BMR, I frankly look forward to StafFs comments on maybe some resolution and maybe responses to the very good questions that are raised in the Staff Report about the BMR units. So I look forward to their responses to that. I also would like to know Staff’ opinion about a turn signal as the Commission brought up last time on Alma Street because circulation continues to be a question and a concern for me and I am not going to go into detail about that now. Parking, the same comment about the prescriptive use of parking and also I would like whoever wants to comment on this the absence of surface parking. As much as it is not pretty and it is not what we want to have a whole sea of surface parking but retailers also like surface parking. People jump in and jump out. One of the big complaints and difficulties at the Safeway in Menlo Park as I understand it is people don’t want to go to the underground parking garage and they just don’t. So I guess I would like some feedback from Staff or applicant or whoever on that. Page 68 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 I think that is all I will say at the moment. Commissioner Keller has other comments and I happy to go back around for other people too and questions too. We do want to take this opportunity to ask other questions of Staff. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. With respect to something Chair Holman said about the proposed additional retail building that would be sold as such. It seems to me that the applicant can fill this with retail or the applicant can make it unaffordable and therefore kill it. In some sense the applicant might come back and build something and say well it doesn’t fill and therefore it is a self-fulfilling prophecy and thereby say the rest of it should be housing too. I just want to realize that the applicant has some control over the extent to which the retail is affordable. My understanding when we had the discussion in CN was that the purpose of adding housing is in order to make the retail viable and affordable. The idea is that it would pay for the redevelopment. What I am wondering is do we actually need this much housing in order to make the amount of retail affordable and justifiable as a development process? I don’t know the answer to that but that is what I was told as one of the reasons we want mixed use developments is the housing is worth something. I am sympathetic with Commissioner Garber’s comments about having the market building placed against the lot line if it meant that there was a comparable amount of open space somewhere else but I don’t see that comparable amount of open space somewhere else. I think that there is a lot of call for people to be able to congregate outside of grocery stores. Let me tell you what I mean. I go to Piazza’s and sometimes I get something to eat and then I find a place to eat it outside or I want to go to a restaurant and want to be able to eat outside there. There is a lot of call for things like that. There isn’t kind of an inviting place for people to hang out outside eating their sandwich or being served by a waiter or waitress with food. It seems to me that if the tradeoffwas that you would have a zero lot line setback that was replaced by a tradeoffthat allowed you to have that kind of thing I could understand that but without that kind of tradeoff I don’t really see the point. With respect to the two-way versus the one-way on the East Meadow right-of-way, that little service road, actually I went today and measured the distance. When I went from the driveway by the apartments over to the comer by East Meadow it is about 150 feet, which I understand is about seven parking spaces. So the purpose of creating angle-in parking is to add three parking spaces. It seems like a lot to me - not really. So I am sympathetic with the points of the single family residences near Ramona and to the south to provide a buffer. I am sympathetic with that idea. I am sympathetic with a larger mixed use project, which has commercial on the ground floor, and residential above that for more of the project, I am sympathetic with that. I want to close with this concept, yes we have been waiting 15 or so years for change but we are going to live with the project for 50 years and we want to make sure that whatever is built is something that we would want to live with for 50 years. Now, I just happen to have celebrated by 50th birthday about a month and a half ago. By the time 50 years is up I am not even sure ifI will be alive and doubt if many of our Commissioners will be on this Commission for more than ten years from now. So this will long last our current Commission. It will certainly long last our City Council. So we are building this for the future of Palo Alto and I think we all want to build a project, the residents, the Commission, the Page 69 8 9 10 11 12 13 i 14 15 16 17 8 19 21 22 23 25¯26 28 29 32 37 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 applicants, the other interested parties, we all want to build a project that will make Palo Alto proud for the next 50 years. Thank you. Mr. Larkin: Before you go around again I just wanted to give a quick reminder that the protocols that the Commission adopted suggest that you use best efforts to end the meetings by eleven o’clock. It is now after eleven o’clock and since it is continued it might be a better use of your time just to go around and get last minute things that you would like the applicant or Staff to come back with at the next meeting. Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: Just a couple of comments. I really got excited there before and I have a couple of more comments. I think that the right direction here is mixed use. I think it is really great to consider mixed use. The last 8,000 years of civilization mixed use had one meaning and the last 50 years it has had a completely different meaning. It used to be that mixed use was everything. You worked, you lived nearby, there were shops nearby, and civilization was a lot more flexible about these things and that is what I think is missing from this. We look at mixed use now and it is a much more structured sort of thing. So what I am looking at here is a little more integration I think in terms of how the retail as well as the residential components work. With regard to the open space what I see here is houses here that are proposed are basically the size of a normal single family house stuck on a postage stamp size lot and the separation between it is the minimum separation you would need in order to have fire separation. If some of these houses were taken and slammed together and make what is called where I grew up in Philadelphia a semi-detached house you would wind up with a much greater amount of usable open space in between each of the houses thereby beginning to promote more of that I guess feeling of being pedestrian and neighborhood friendly. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I guess one of the things about going early is you get the benefit of listening to everybody’s comments. I am going to try something here that we may not get unanimity, we are certainly not going to vote or make any sort of motion, but I want to try to bring some of the comments together to accomplish the goals of some of the things we talked about at the beginning of this process and give some more direction and focus. It seems to me that there is a desire for more retail. There is a desire for a little bit more open space and how that open space is more integrated into the environment and create a gathering place. So kind of where it almost feels like it comes down for me is if we took three of the single family houses out of this project and took that space converted some of it or the bulk of that into retail and maybe 1,000 or so more square feet into a park, and we put that park on the backside of the commercial building instead of off to the side, some fairly modest reasonable changes, I don’t l~now if we are going to come to unanimity but I think we may come a lot closer to consensus. That gets us above the FAR requirement for CN or at about that requirement for retail. It gets us considerable more open space, integrates the project a little bit more, and does up the retail to what I think is sort of a reasonable level. I would align myself with the comments Page 70 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 of Commissioner Garber with respect to the 35,000 to 40,000 seems a bit heavy here but something closer to what CN would require feels about right to me. I think that could be accomplished as I say by essentially trading three of the single family homes for more open space, more retail, and possibly even getting back some of the housing by putting additional units on top of the additional commercial space. I don’t know how that feels to people but it feels right to me. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: I will try and be as succinct as possible. I agree with almost everything my fellow Commissioners have said. I like the way Commissioner Tuma has just summarized things. I would add just a few comments. One is that the housing types have a great deal of uniformity in the single family area and this transition area between the mixed use and the residential should be a variety of housing types. The developer is proposing and likely to receive a lot of density of housing here. The public hasn’t really spoken very much about this and I think they haven’t quite visualized it in comparison to other housing development in this community and how dense these single family homes are going to be. In exchange the community should get a well-designed development with an adequate amount of retail and that well designed should be an integration, it should be a progressive urban design. I am very pleased that the developer has brought on Ken Hayes who we have seen projects from in the past. I think if he is allowed to be un-handcuffed and help work with the residential developer and the two of them partner together they could come up with something that is really progressive and even though it may not be everything that we would like I frankly would love to see what Commissioner Sandas has proposed in the retail, I have come to accept we are not going to get it. The other point I would like to point out is I agree with Commissioner Garber on the value of the BMR units. I think we just need to make sure we are differentiating between what would be mandated for a project and whether it is the open space or the BMR and what is being proposed. The only public benefit is the net difference between the two. It is not the gross amount of it. We have mandates in this city for in lieu fees, for BMRs, for open space, and all those kinds of things. So I just want to make that distinction. I also want clear this 1,300 square foot public meeting space is a good idea. I think Commissioner Lippert’s concept wherever it is located I think it should be not just for the BMRs but it is not retail space, it is not commercial space. That is almost insulting to try to shoehorn it in under that rationalization. Let’s not count it that way. Let’s not get into a beef over that. It is just silly to even characterize it that way. Finally, I would like to reiterate that since this went to the Council the Council had a ’come to God’ on efforts to retain our retail in this community and concerns over the rate at which we are increasing our housing supply. The community has adopted growth and has accepted growth in housing but I guess it was July when they had their major meeting and directed back to the Planning Commission and that vision was to retain retail. So for us to come with essentially one of our neighborhood centers on the tails of that overall direction for a citywide program is just completely inconsistent. I have to believe that the Council is going to come to grips with the Page 71 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 contradictions between these two things and come more in line with what the Planning Commission is advocating. I fear that the developer believes that he can play the Council against the Planning Commission and win out. That is a gamble that he may be willing to take or we can try to come together with a compromise at our next meeting and see whether you can get unanimous support from the Planning Commission on something that is not everything that we would like, it is not everything the community would like, but something we could accept, something the developer could accept, and something the Council would support. That is the challenge for all of us. I hope we will all move in that same direction. Chair Holman: I guess final things that I would say are that I am not ready to go where you went Commissioner Tuma because there are enough unknowns yet. We don’t really know what the public benefits are going to be. For instance there are some calculations that need yet to be done, open space. What would be wonderful is if when we come back again if there was just a rough sketch of how this project could look. What I worry a little bit about is if the Commission has agreement or at least majority agreement on what this should be when we come back again, have digested some of the other information that we have gotten recently, the questions we will get answered between now and then. I would hate for something totally different to go to Council even if it responds - the good side is if it responds more to what we want that is great but there is always this kind of push-me/pull-me of what goes to Council is something we have never laid eyes on before then it creates a very difficult situation. So maybe Staff can talk about how that might be managed. I don’t know that there is with out process a good way to do that but I would like to hear what you have to say back about that. I absolutely agree with Commissioner Burt’s last comments and look forward to Staff’s comments about yes, what would count as retail. A PC basically is a negotiation. It is not like a Development Agreement but it is more or less a negotiation. The developer gets typically more or it is put in place theoretically and according to our code it is put into place because there is something unusual about the site and that is one of the findings that has to be made. This already is a PC so we have a little bit different situation here. We have addressed this once before it was already found to be a PC so that finding is a little bit different here. But it is somewhat of a negotiation and the developer has I think a reasonable expectation to have something more but the public also needs to get more and that is where the public benefits come in. I don’t see any other comments by any other Commissioners. We didn’t quite make it by eleven o’clock but eleven-fifteen or so. With that if there are no other comments we will continue this item to March 28, 2007. It will be in these Chambers? Okay. Thank you all very much. Thank you to the applicant and members of the public for hanging in there with us for this long meeting. We have a little bit of business to conduct so don’t leave, Commissioners. We have no minutes tonight to approve. Page 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ATTACHMENT D 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 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes March 28, 2007 DRAFT EXCERPT 3401, 3415~ and 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza)*: Request for rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) district for demolition of three buildings, including the vacant Albertson’s store, and construction of a mixed use project including 24,000 square feet of retail/commercial space, 14 Below Market Rate apartments, and 39 single family residences. The project includes a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create condominium units. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mr. Curtis Williams, Assistant Director: Thank you Chair Holman and Commissioners. This item is continued from your March 8 meeting and we have provided you with some additional information in your Staff Report in response to some of your questions. There have also been several questions the last couple of days from Commissioners and we would like to report back to you on some of the substantive questions that were asked. Then after I am done Don Larkin of the Attorney’s Office has a couple of comments to make on some other items. A couple Commissioners asked if the CN District zoning were in place and then Site and Design Review would apply, which is required for mixed use development, what if any discretion would the Commission have as far as uses go as opposed to just the design. Don can elaborate on this but it is relatively little, only to the extent that they are incompatible with an adjacent use. We have given to you today a handout, it is two pages front and back, that is the section chapter from .... 18.82 from the Zoning Ordinance on Site and Design Review. It does specify in one of the sections here under Criteria, under Site and Design Review, are limited generally to design and compatibility type of issues. So unless the use somehow conflicts with that there is a not much determination of uses. It is more of the design of the project. A second question was the setback from the street or the lack of setback from the street and why is that proposed or what are our thoughts on that. The Comprehensive Plan has guided us towards in the updates of the commercial zoning districts in particular and also the PTOD towards moving buildings towards the front to create more of a pedestrian orientation along streets, wider sidewalks and frontages. So we think that is consistent with those goals and with the context based design criteria that have been outlined. But by the same token one of the intents of that is then to move parking behind the building to provide adequate open spaces and such behind there. So that factors into the whole design concept which the Commission discussed last time in terms of how that area is treated behind the building and a way to sort of use that space that would have been in front in an effective way in terms of open space uses. There was a question about public and private streets and kind of why with both the streets and to some extent the open space why the streets would be private streets. This you have seen in a few other projects in the recent past and it is generally because the street widths are narrower than our public street widths to avoid excessive pavement and slow traffic and such. So the City would not maintain those streets however we do require them to be constructed to the City’s Page 1 1 construction standards as far as the pavement and curbs and drainage go, but they would remain 2 private streets and the maintenance responsibility would be that of the property owner and/or 3 homeowners association. If a street is connected both ends as a through street from public streets 4 then we would be looking at that and require a public street status for those types of streets. 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 There were some questions about vertical versus horizontal mixed use and was horizontal mixed use allowable and how do we make the distinction or how adequate is that? Vertical and horizontal mixed use are both considered mixed use under our code, and under our definitions, and the primary distinction or the primary important component to recall is the integration of the uses. So the horizontal mixed use is adequate. You saw a number of scenarios, diagrams, from Rick Williams and his staffwhen they were preparing the mixed use and multi-family discussion for you that showed horizontal mixed and generally integrated through linking open spaces and pedestrian networks so that it felt like sort of a community. I think that is the way to look at it. The flip side of that is what you might call parcelization and making a project look like completely separate environments and that is not the concept of mixed use that we want to promote. It is comes down to sort of design solutions and design judgments as to how well integrated those uses are. There were a couple of questions about the Quimby Act and does the Quimby Act apply to this project? I think we have given you a response in the Staff Report as to Tentative Map. The Tentative Map has been submitted, had been submitted before the Quimby regulations were adopted by the City, however, we typically do not apply those to projects that are in the process. That is just a policy it isn’t a requirement but the really operative factor here is that you are looking at a PC, Planned Community, which is a legislative act that allows you to determine what you think is appropriate open space. So if your sense is that you need to get closer to what the Quimby Act requirements would be which we have provided you with as well then that is within your discretion to consider that as part of your review. There were a couple of statements made in the applicant’s recent letter to you that we just want to clarify. Our positions aren’t necessarily black and white, for instance that the community room is defined as personal services, which qualify as part of the retail services because it might be used as an art studio or is proposed to be used as an art studio. We would need to have an awful lot more information and tie that down more than just calling it a community room to be able to make that ldnd of determination as to whether it is used for that all day, and how is it not going to change over time, and those kinds of things. So we are not ready to say it is one or the other without a lot more details and assurances that that is in effect going to be its long term use or we might not consider it personal service. There also was a comment from the memo that Rick Williams provided you when you were discussing mixed use about how parcel sizes particularly larger parcels are likely to be developed better as commercial in the front and residential towards the rear. I would just point out one thing that was left out of that quote from the letter, and we provided you a copy of the letter tonight too, is that the reference was that probably a .25 FAR was achievable under that scenario still with the commercial up front and the residential towards the back. 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 There also was mention of the upcoming rezonings of the four sites currently zoned residential that the Commission has recommended that three of those four rezoning to commercial zoning. just wanted to clarify that the representation is here that perhaps the Council has made that determination and I want to clarify that they have not yet heard that item. So we are not sure whether the Council is going to be comfortable with the mixed use component as opposed to a more highly retail focus on those sites. So it just is something that hasn’t been completed yet and I wanted to be sure that was clear. I know some others of you had some other questions. If you feel we haven’t covered them here please feel free later to ask those and we will try to get to those as well. I want to make a couple more comments and then turn it over to Don. The recommendation before you tonight is to deny the Planned Community and rezone this property as Neighborhood Commercial, CN. Some of you have asked is it possible to sort of marry the PC and the CN concepts where you see PC would be approved using the CN as kind of the base standards for that. The answer is yes that is possible. That certainly is something you can do, use those as the base and then determine what additional public benefits component there would be to the project. Don may want to elaborate on that momentarily. Then Mr. Borock did provide a memo to you tonight and I just wanted to clarify that I am not sure why his indication was that the materials submitted by the applicant weren’t available this afternoon at the main library. Our understanding from some members of the public was that they saw those materials on Monday. Mr. Borock is correct that it was closed on Friday but on Monday it was open and we know that someone was there and saw those materials. Also I would point out that they were available at the Development Center Friday as of about eleven o’clock in the morning. Then on the last portion of Mr. Borock’s letter related to CEQA issues and that the proposed Tentative Map is not included with this project and therefore you shouldn’t consider CEQA because it doesn’t include the entire project. We have done this on many projects and it is adequate. The project you are seeing includes all the components that would have an environmental impact. The Tentative Map and subsequent mapping of this would create any additional impacts in addition to what you are seeing here. It is, as you see, not at all unusual to have the project come through the entitlement process, the design review process, whatever, have the environmental review, and then come back later with the map which is covered by the same review then but no additional impacts have arisen as part of the map itself. So we do feel comfortable that what is before you tonight is adequate for you to recommend on. I think Don would like to make a couple comments. Mr. Larkin: I just wanted to comment on two things that I had heard from a couple of Commissioners related to the letter from the applicant. There was a concern that some of the Commission’s discussion might be constrained based on some of the statements in the letter. First I wanted to clarify that the City Council’s prescreening of the PC application is not directly binding on the Planning and Transportation Commission and that you are expected to make your 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 determination independent of that prescreening. You can certainly look at it for guidance but that should not constrain your discussion. The second is that PC applications are treated as quasi-judicial for purposes of how we conduct the hearings but they are not actually quasi-judicial items. This is a legislative decision that is made using quasi-judicial practices based on the Commission’s procedures that were adopted after the last two Retreats. Chair Holman: Don, I have a couple of other questions about process here. We kept the public hearing open and the intention at that time was to let people who had not been able to stay and speak at that meeting to come to this meeting and speak. Subsequent to that we have a different recommendation from the Staff in the Staff Report. So what would you suggest towards allowing anyone to speak? Do you have a recommendation? Mr. Larkin: I would recommend that members of the public be allowed to speak regardless of whether or not they have previously spoken. What the Chair may wish to request is that members of the public use their best discretion in deciding whether or not their opinions have already been heard and not to speak on items that they have already spoken to but to speak on the new recommendations. Chair Holman: One more question having to do with the Staff recommendation of CN. If the Commission were so inclined to initiate a CN zone how would that discussion commence, take place, transpire? Mr. Larldn: The Commission should refrain from discussing the relative merits of CN zoning except in the context of the PC discussion that is happening tonight. I have read Mr. Borock’s letter and he cites correctly the code. The difficulty is that I believe that if the Commission was to go so far as to bypass the initiation and then notice on the hearing that it would not be consistent with the due process rights of the property owner and the neighbors, and that is a much better process if you just stick tonight, if the Commission is inclined to an initiation. I would also just say that I understand what the distinction between a more restrictive zoning I don’t think it is clear that CN is more restrictive than PC because PC sets a specific development plan and also I think that that provision is more applicable to residential zoning to residential zoning or a particular commercial zone to a different commercial zone but not to a PC to a commercial zone. Chair Holman: So one other clarifying question about this process. Should, and I have no idea, should the Commission decide that they wanted to initiate a change to CN zoning without having opportunity at this meeting to discuss the merits of CN zone would that mean that we would obviously notice a new meeting not a continuation for purposes of public notice, and the other thing is would we also so that we could vet the issues carry the PC forward and initiate the zone change? It would be rather strange I think but I don’t see any other way around it. I would like your professional comment. Mr. Larkin: You could do one of two things or none of these things. You could recommend a denial on a PC and initiate the rezoning to CN or you could close the public hearing on the PC Page 4 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 and continue that item to the next hearing when we would have a public hearing on the CN and they would both go in conjunction. That is unusual but it is an option. The other option would be to just finish up tonight and not initiate the CN. Chair Holman:. Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Tuma, I apologize. Commissioner Tuma: I just wanted to clarify something you said Don, and it relates to something Curtis said earlier. One of the options that I understand we have before us tonight would be to adopt the PC but also recommend that the CN requirements be adhered to in implementing the PC. In that context it seems to me that Commissioners would need to discuss the relative merits of the CN requirements if we were so inclined to go that direction in order to get there. So I just want to make sure that you are not saying we are precluded from doing that tonight. Mr. Larkin: No, the Commission is free to discuss the CN zone as it relates to the current application for a PC zone. One thing I forgot to mention earlier that the Commission should be aware of is that while that is an option, in the PC before it can actually get implemented as a PC ordinance it would require the consent of the applicant. So it is likely before it could actually be adopted and implemented because we don’t impose a PC zone on an applicant but it doesn’t prevent you from making the recommendation to Council and Council can have that conversation with the applicant at the appropriate time. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: Since there was no recommendation previously from Staff when would it be appropriate to have the applicant respond to the Staff’s recommendation and hear that? Would it be up front or would we hear it before we begin our deliberations after the public hearing? Mr. Larkin: I would leave that to the discretion of the Chair. If the Chair wants to allow additional time to the applicant to address those issues that is her discretion. I think it is a logical thing to allow. Chair Holman: At a minimum it would seem to me that because we kept the public comment period open I would like the Commissioners to weigh in on this and Staff if you wish. Since we kept the public comment period open that we would finish up the public comment and then applicant would of course have opportunity to comment or respond at that period in time. So perhaps that might be a way that we could pursue that would be typical. Though this is a little unusual since there was a different recommendation from Staff. Mr. Larkin: In light of that absolutely the applicant would get the normal rebuttal time but in light of the changes if the Chair wanted to allow them additional time to respond I think that would be appropriate. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Page 5 1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. One possibility is to give the applicant a few minutes 2 beforehand so that the applicant could respond to the Staffrecommendation, which would then 3 allow the public to respond to the applicant’s response. Then that is separate from the 4 applicant’s sum np at the end. In this case the applicant would get two bites of the apple but I 5 think that would give the community a better opportunity to intervene in their comments. 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 You earlier said, I think at last meeting, I believe that Don you said that we could deny the PC application, we could accept it with conditions, and those conditions might either be conditions that the applicant might accept or the applicant wouldn’t accept. I am actually sympathetic with the editorial of today’s Palo Alto Weekly that in order to provide some closure to the process that if we were to, under the hypothetical and it is not clear that we will do this but under the hypothetical that we would deny the project that we should give criteria as to what would be acceptable to us to give guidance for the applicant or for a future submission. So to what extent are we able to do that kind of feedback? Mr. Larkin: I think that is appropriate feedback because what you are doing tonight is making recommendations either you are moving the project along to ARB or you are making recommendations to Council. I think it is important that Council hear those recommendations loudly and flat recommendation on denial is probably not as useful to the applicant or to Council than a recommendation that comes with some additional information and recommendations of what would be acceptable to the Planning and Transportation Commission. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, did you have another question? Vice-Chair Lippert: No, I just would like.to say that I think it is appropriate to ask the applicant if they wish to make a presentation up front at their choosing. We do usually allow them to make some closing remarks before we take the vote, once there is a motion of course. So I think that that would also be appropriate. Chair Holman: I actually would concur with that and if Commissioners are okay with that I think it is appropriate. I had a couple of other clarifying questions to ask. There was a communication from E.T. Perldns regarding the access and usage of both the public meeting room or community room and the open space that was indicated on the proposal. Could City Attorney respond to that letter, please? Mr. Larldn: I don’t have the letter but I can respond with regard to the open space. They are proposing dedicated open space, which would subject the proposed park to the City’s Parks and Recreation rules, which would prescribe hours and access. With regard to the community room I think that would have to be arranged with the applicant and it is probably premature to do that, to determine how that would be community access to that room would be provided. 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 Chair Holman: I think maybe Staff can provide you a copy of that. I think there is another issue that was presented in that letter. It is not indicated as an attachment but it is in the packet that came this week. It has to do with the homeowner’s association being responsible for maintenance. So if you could take a look at that. That was one question. Another question I had was the Staff Report says that additional work is still needed to determine the adequacy of the BMR element of this proposal both to determine the adequacy of the BMR compliance and also to determine if there was any public benefit. If we are discussing this tonight when would that information be made available and what opportunity would we have to weigh in on that before a final determination was made about the adequacy and about the public benefit? Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: I think what we are asking you to do is consider the broader development parameters that you would apply to this site and then that obviously would drive the BMR requirements and the adequacy of that. So we would suggest that you keep the discussion at that level and that the BMR Agreement would have to come back. We would suggest that if your recommendation goes forward that you forward that with the recommendation to Council that the BMR Agreement would come back to the Planning Commission in conjunction probably with the Tentative Map would be the appropriate time to do that. Then you would have the opportunity to review the details of that with the specific development parameters hopefully already established. Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: A couple of questions. Today we received from Staff a copy of the D Overlay that sets out the Site and Design Review requirements. Could you just review for members of the Commission as well as possibly for the public the significance of the D Overlay in CN? Mr. Williams: The significance of it is that it allows ARB and the Planning and Transportation Commission full review of the site layout for the project. So you are not by action on setting these parameters then someway abdicating authority over seeing the site layout. That would come back to you. We are anticipating that if you do some things then if it would go to CN zoning then you would still have an opportunity to see how the site plan has changed from what you see tonight when it comes back through the Site and Design process then it ultimately goes to Council as well. So it has the Commission in a little bit of a reverse order but Commission, ARB, Council order to it in terms of the design. Mr. Larkin: I have an answer to the Chair’s question. Chair Holman: Thank you. Mr. Larkin: Actually two points. The first is as currently proposed the 14-unit BMR portion of the project would be a rental project operated by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. It would not be a common interest development so it would not be subject to a homeowner’s association. If that were to change and this were to become a condominium project one of the conditions of 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 approval on the Tentative Map would be a requirement that the City review and approve all CC&Rs for the project and in the CC&Rs we would include requirements that the community room be maintained as open for the public and any changes to the CC&Rs would be subject to City approval with regard to maintenance and other requirements. That is a common practice in cities to do that. Chair Holman: Regarding the open space? Mr. Larkin: Regarding the open space my initial comment still stands that if it is dedicated open space then it is governed by the City. In terms of access we would probably impose something in the CC&Rs that would require that maintenance be done by the homeowner’s association and those would be binding on future homeowner’s associations. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: One last clarifying question for me anyway. With respect to CN can Staff give us some guidance or summary on housing types that would be permissible under CN? Mr. Williams: Well there’are a variety of housing types that are permissible in fact just about any housing type other than just a detached R-1 size type single family. It could be small lot single family. It could be town homes, attached or detached. It could be apartments. It could be condominiums. Any of those are allowable the only distinction right now is in terms of, well actually it probably might even be able to be fee simple lots because while that is not allowed in multi-family the CN doesn’t have minimum lot sizes like multi-family does. So it is really any variety and combination of those kinds of housing types. Commissioner Tuma: Let me just ask a follow up question if I may. I am a little bit confused. You started out by saying that R-1 size or type houses might not be permissible, fee simple would be, if this is an issue... Mr. Williams: If it is small lot fee simple type but not the R-l, like a 6,000 square foot lot. CN I think specifically now indicates single family is not and that means that type of single family is not allowed in .... Commissioner Tuma: Let me ask a direct question here then. Would the type of house that is being proposed currently by the applicant be permissible under CN? Mr. Williams: Yes. Commissioner Tuma: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Curtis, in your review of some of the items I don’t believe you addressed some of the questions surrounding public benefit. I was wondering if you or others on the Staff 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 could address how public benefit relates 1) to the CN zone if it does, 2) to the PC application, which it does? Mr. Williams: Sure. Steve and Don may have some additional thoughts here. First of all compliance with the CN zone does not require any determination of public benefits. So if it is just a straight CN zone you comply with the regulations, if there is a mixed use then it has to go through a Site and Design Review and you see the layout and get to recommend regarding that. The PC requires that public benefits be identified in order to justify the fact that a PC is deviating from other standards of the zoning code. In doing that it is very open-ended as far as what that is other than that it should be something that is above and beyond what would typically be required under zoning for that. So if it is open space it should be above and beyond what the basic requirement is, ’if it is housing it should be BMR units above and beyond that, or other items that may be proposed for it. There is quantified nature to making that determination. It is the Commission’s recommendation, the Council’s ultimate determination that those public benefits are there and then enumerated in the PC ordinance that justify granting this package of development entitlements that comes along with the project. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: So ifI am understanding you correctly if the property was zoned CN the applicant would have no need to provide public benefits to have their project approved. Mr. Williams: Right. Commissioner Garber: However, if it were a PC public benefits would have to be demonstrated for that approval to occur2 Mr. Williams: Correct. Commissioner Garber: In a case where you did a PC that was based on the criteria of CN the applicant would have to meet the criteria of CN and produce public benefits that would be approvable. Mr. Williams: That’s right. Commissioner Garber: So the benefit there is that if the Commission wanted to get both the criteria of CN plus the public benefit it should be looking at a CN plus PC versus if it believes that the project can stand without those public benefits it should be looking at a CN potentially. Mr. Williams: That would be the only way to get those public benefits. Mr. Larldn: The only thing I would add to that is that you would need to get the applicant’s buyoff and in order to do that there would probably need to be some incentive and a deviation from those CN standards. Commissioner Garber: In which case? 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 Mr. Larkin: If you were to do a PC zone with the CN standards then you would need some buy- in from the applicant and in order to do that you are going to have to give them some extra entitlements. Commissioner Garber: That would be beyond the CN? Mr. Larkin: That is correct. Commissioner Garber: Yes. Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: Going back to the housing, the BMR units, it is my understanding that this has a life to it at which point it would then revert back to the property owners, is that correct? Mr. Larkin: That is something that would have to get worked out. It is a detail that we haven’t reviewed yet. The proposal is to have a life to it but it is not clear what happens to it at that point because that is something we would have to work out with the applicant if it was to move beyond this stage. Vice-Chair Lippert: The reason I ask that question is that if the housing units or the BMR units were integrated in as part of the housing there would be ownership, there would be equity, and therefore the people that were living there would be able to turnover those units eventually and move up but the point is that there would be equity in the land. Whereas if the BMR units had life certain to them and they reverted to other ownership then the equity is lost basically. Mr. Larkin: Just to make clear, the proposal is for these to be rental units so there is no equity that would accrue to the occupants but that is something that is within the Commission’s scope to discuss. Vice-Chair Lippert: I guess the point is that if the Housing Corporation has control over those units they have control for the period of time and then the equity for them or the value evaporates. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt and we are still on clarifying questions so if we can contain our questions to that. Commissioner Burt: In the letter from the applicant on the first page at the bottom they alluded to Staff supporting limiting the Planning Commission review to approval with only minor conditions or denial. I didn’t think that was what was explained to us as a Commission last meeting. Can Staff clarify on the amount of or degree of conditions that we might include within an approval? Mr. Larldn: I think and I am trying to remember exactly what I said but my intent was to give the Commission direction in that there are three options: recommendation of denial, 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 recommendation of approval, and recommendation of approval with conditions. If the Commission recommended conditions that were unacceptable to the applicant the applicant would likely be free to treat that as a denial but that doesn’t prevent the Commission from making those recommendations. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Then we had this issue of the community meeting room and the applicant is saying now that they are talking about more correctly characterizing this room as intended for predominantly art classes whereas previously they had called it a community meeting room for shared use among BMR residents, members of the community, and the Pacific Art League. Has Staff received a change in the proposal for the use of that room that would constitute it now being characterized as retail service or personal services? Mr. Williams: There haven’t been any plan changes Beth is saying. I think the project description letter expands a little bit more including that language about the art studio so that it is in there more prominently. Commissioner Burt: When the Commission reviewed this on the 8th the description that was in the applicant’s description was the correct description that was germane at that time, is that correct? Mr. Williams: Yes it was. Commissioner Burt: Okay, thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller and ifI might, I have seven cards from members of the public and it would help us greatly if you intend to speak if you would turn a card in at this time. It would really, really help us prepare and plan. So if you plan to speak please turn a card in at this time. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Just to be completely clear if we recommend approval with conditions and the conditions are not accepted by the applicant that is form a denial effectively. Mr. Larkin: That is effectively how we would treat it so that instead of going to ARB for a recommendation to Council it would go straight to Council for them to clarify how they are going to take the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendations. Commissioner Keller: As I believe you said earlier if We vote to deny that it is a "really good idea" to indicate what it is we would want so that would be a denial with recommendations as to what we want. That would be guidance to the property owner to help accelerate closure on the process. Mr. Larkin: That is an appropriate action for the Commission to take. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert had a question about the longevity of the BMR units. I am wondering about the longevity of the retail in the sense that in the situation when the back portion of the property under the proposed application was converted into 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 residential and the from portion of the property was a combined residential and retail. Then at end of life of that building it would be redeveloped. What can be done to make sure that the retail remains as retail even under subsequent redevelopment? Mr. Williams: The CN and virtually all the commercial districts require that any ground floor retail cannot be converted to office use or residential. It can be personal services but it has to be the retail or the personal services and has to remain that way. So if somebody came in and wanted to put office in that space instead in the future they couldn’t do that. Commissioner Keller: If they were to tear down that building and start over again would be. 15 of a smaller piece of land? Is there ability to put a deed restriction on there saying that you can’t reduce the retail below what is going on through this subdivision? Mr. Williams: I am not sure of the mechanism but I think it would certainly be appropriate to be sure have some method in hand to assure that that does not happen so that the remaining commercial area is then limited even further by the. 15, yes. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, did you have a clarifying question? Commissioner Garber: Yes. Correct me ifI am wrong but regardless of the zone, CN, PC, etc., the amount of BMR units is created by the amount of residential units that are on that property regardless of the zone that it is in. The only difference is that in a PC you can leverage other benefits or other opportunities for the developer into greater amounts of BMR units, is that correct? Mr. Williams: Right, it depends on the amount and type of housing that is proposed. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, you had one last clarifying question? Commissioner Keller: Yes. If the property were CN zone is there under the CN zoning regulations is there potential to require that there be a grocery store or does that require a PC? Mr. Larldn: We couldn’t require that if it was straight CN zoning. They would have to conform their project to the CN zoning but there is nothing in the CN zoning that would require a grocery store and we couldn’t impose that requirement outside of a PC. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Chair Holman: Okay, Commissioners, I would like to go to the applicant and then we have seven cards from the public. The applicant will be able to speak now and also in summation after the public. So there will be ten minutes for the applicant at this point in time and if you 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 would state your name and fill out a card that would come to the Secretary that would be most helpful. Mr. Patrick Costanzo, Jr., Greenbrier Homes, Applicant: Madam Chair, Commissioners, good evening. We have prepared a presentation for you tonight. It is probably ten to 12 minutes so I will talk fast for you. I do believe the content will be helpful for the further discussion. In addition, Jim Baer would like to address some of the questions on the letter afterwards if you will allow him to. Let me go ahead and start with the proposal. We heard you last week or two weeks ago and we went back and put together an agenda. What we have for you tonight is site constraints because we. recognize that you are really talking about how to design this site and we haven’t shared with you all the constraints that we have had to live with the last two years in designing it. So I think it would be helpful for you to understand those in the context of talking about what you want on the site. Second because the plan before you tonight is something we have worked on for nine months based on comments that we received from Council in the study session we wanted to share with you what those comments were that drove us to this plan. So you can understand where we are coming from in the design. Lastly, you did talk about the CN zone and a lot of the questions you brought up just recently we have tried to address looking at our project the way it is proposed, how that meets in the CN and where it wouldn’t meet it so you could have that knowledge. So with that again, just to remind you, the site that is before you is right up here. Let’s all remember that.this is a transitional site. We have three story apartments to the north, we have two story apartments on this northwest part, then we have R-1 in this area, we have R-1 to the south, and then we have an office building, and then the busy corridor, Alma. So it is surrounded with different uses and there is a challenge when you are trying to be compatible which is a direction in all planning with the surrounding neighborhood. So what are the constraints that we have to live with? The first one, as was explained, the Stanford Villa Apartments have an easement for access. That easement is shown here in light blue-gray. That easement is a current driveway in and out here plus they have the right to access our access point wherever it comes out on the site where you can go in and out both ways. So that is why you see a horseshoe access. They have the right to come out of their project and then exit wherever our exit is. The next constraint we have is in the green. The green is the access easement that is our easement on Stanford Villa’S property. So again these are three story apartments. That green area is a driveway that serves the access for their whole project as well as right along there in those buildings are parking spaces at grade underneath there. So this is actually a driveway so in the design it makes sense to use that as a driveway, put parldng off of it and/or garages. So you can see in our proposed plan we have parldng and then we have the garages of these residential units off of that alley. Again, these are also three story units so it made sense to have three story massing up against it. Page 13 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 The next constraint we have is on Ramona. Ramona is an R-1 area as you know and through the years of processing this site it was always asked do not have vehicular access off Ramona. So we were told in the design stay away from vehicular access but do provide pedestrian access to tie the neighborhood to the retail. So here is a pedestrian access and then three more standard type housing fronting that to complete that neighborhood. So this pedestrian access creates pedestrian access through the site, through a very well landscaped paseo here that acts as a buffer for this project with the new houses, and provides access into the retail. What is the next constraint? Down on Emerson they have a dead end street in here and a bulb. They have asked for no vehicular access or pedestrian access. So the site is designed to not have either of those. As you can see the paseo I have just explained could provide pedestrian access if they changed their mind but at this point the neighborhood has come to us and said we don’t want pedestrian access there. So our proposal is not to have it, it could be provided if they change their mind. The next constraint we had is the office building as you heard from the owner last time is an access easement there. So we had to make sure we had a driveway there to allow them access still. Lastly, there were some questions last time about why no signal at the intersection. No signal is because of the proximity of this entrance to East Meadow’s signal and that signal is tied to the arms on the railroad tracks and so you can’t have two signals there creating havoc. We have been told by the Traffic and Transportation Department no signal there but there will be a two- way pocket there to allow access both ways. So in summary those are constraints that no matter you want to recommend you have to adhere to those constraints and we wanted to share those with you so you understand them and understand why we are where we are. Having said that, John told you last time we came away from the Council hearing thinking we heard a little more retail, a little less residential, a sense of place, gather spaces, superior quality design, and more parking. How did we come up with that list? We listened closely to what the Council Members said, re-listened to the tapes, and we have an expert design team designing this site that have a lot of years experience doing this work, and we wanted to make sure we didn’t spend nine months coming back with something that didn’t address what we thought we heard. So these are just quotes out of that hearing. I know we did send you the tape I don’t know if you were able to hear it or not but they were quotes that drove us to where we are at today. That is just to share with you why we are at where we are. We didn’t just do it to do it. We heard the retail should not be 30 to 40,000, it should definitely be more than 19,000, maybe lose five or ten homes. We heard that it is extremely important we are successful in achieving something on this site. I won’t read all these you can read them. I will pick one or two off the slide and get through them. We heard we would all need to compromise, the neighbors, the developer, and the Council. We heard that the site is not Middlefield. We heard that if we dictate too much we will end up with a five-legged camel. We need to move forward. We Page 14 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 should keep the PC zone for integrated design. I support retail along Alma. Design will make some things succeed. The project needs to feel like a comfortable place. It is fair to say that the project before us is sort of about there, housing is about right and retail is about right. Neighborhood Commercial is not defined by use or square footage but rather by a feeling. Need good community space where people can feel comfortable congregating. Green space, trees. I am supportive of high density to make the project viable. It is not about square footage. Every retailer has storage and office and it is included in their square footage. The numbers we are talking about here tonight can work. I compliment the developer on the BMR units. Public space needs to be accessible to both the housing and the retail like a village. Then we had neighbor comments all through the year. I remember tiding bikes to the store with my children. I remember walking to Alma Plaza. We want to recreate that feeling. We want to be able to go there on the weekends and have a bagel and hang out and meet our neighbors. Chair Holman: Mr. Costanzo you have three minutes left so if Mr. Baer would like to speak in your portion as opposed to a follow up or the wrap up then. Mr. Costanzo: I think I need to go through this for your benefit so I will continue. Things we did were completely rework the residential floor plans, we reduced the houses, we hired the new retail architect, we increased the retail. There are the new elevations, There are the elevations John showed you. We added the park. We added 44 spaces. We added tree wells. Here is the park area. It is important to understand that the plaza really is a congregating area connected to green space which is what we heard, a sense of entry on the green space. I will flip up to the CN zoning comparison and if you would like me to go back to those slides and give you a little more time I will. We meet the residential FAR, the .50 allowable. The .54 is current with the houses we have it is .47, the extra BMR we are offering as a public benefit put .04 over. That would be your decision to decide if those extra BMRs are worth that .04. We think they are. Garages are exempt. We meet the density of 15 units allowed we are at 12.6. We meet the height limit of 35 feet. We meet the daylight plane along the southern edge. We meet the mixed use FAR of maximum .9 allowed, .67 proposed. We meet landscape open space. We meet the setback along Alma. We are at 39 percent open space versus 35. We meet the goal of having parldng behind buildings and below grade. The quote in the CN zone is CN zone is to assure maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas. That has been the challenge and I showed you all the reasons why and we meet those. We will have minor design exceptions as most projects do but the main thing as you know that we don’t meet in the CN is the ground floor retail. Minimum 15 percent on this site would be 27,500 we are proposing 18,250 ground and 24,000 total. Things that we give you that a CN won’t are a grocery store is not required in CN. CN does not guarantee any specific. The BMR rental opportunity would be lost, the extra units. Of course we would build the BMRs per the ordinance or pay the fee, whatever is worked out, but we wouldn’t be able to offer this extra benefit. Given all the constraints we really think that the project before you is a cohesive neighborhood serving plan with timeless urban design. Greenbrier is a quality builder. Our team of experts has done a lot of this type of mixed use. Page 15 1 The commitment to green building on both residential and commercial. Then the commitment to 2 give a grocery store and additional money for the turnkey BMR units we think those are all 3 benefits of the plan. The site plan before you meets a lot of the CN requirements, there are some 4 tradeoffs, and we are here to request the PC zone approval with the plan that is before us. 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 Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions? Given none we will go to members of the public then. The applicant will have an opportunity to comment again after the public comments. The first speaker I have is Bill Chapman. Speakers will have five minutes and if you would please, as City Attorney recommended earlier, if you have not spoken before feel free, if you have spoken before please keep your comments to something that you have not addressed previously to this Commission. Thank you very much. Mr. Chapman. Mr. Bill Chapman, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I have watched these proceedings on my computer three weeks ago. I hope that what I have to say tonight is not redundant. If it is please accept my apologies in advance. Just a quick comment about the prior speaker who referenced the Council meeting in 2006. In Jim Baer’s packet there is an article from the news about that it doesn’t seem to me to say quite what he said. For example, Kishimoto is saying basically maybe we need more retail and we should cut the housing down to 20 houses. I won’t go through the rest of it but if that is the article that was just quoted I think it has been misquoted. What I want to talk tonight about briefly is an assumption which the developer has made which it seems to me you folks may have accepted. He has said even though looking around Palo Alto you see shopping centers thriving he has said that the Alma Plaza Shopping Center, four acres, all commercial or commercial with a few houses, cannot succeed largely because of its geography. I think I am right in representing that that is what he has said to you. Therefore he has felt necessary to collapse a four-acre neighborhood retail center into a grocery store with 14 BMR units over it and two public use buildings nearby. Three weeks ago you heard from an opposing consultant brought in by Martin Stone who speculated that this project as a retail center should be all right. I don’t know what you thought about him. I wish to suggest tonight that there is a third opinion which I can provide documentation for which quotes a very respected and knowledgeable developer who has rendered opinion of the desirability and viability of Alma Plaza as chiefly retail. "This is the finest center I have worked on in 25 years," developer John McNellis said. This is from 2003 and he had been working on it as we all know for five or seven years and he knew it intimately. At that time he was not the owner as he is now. It reflects the best thinldng of urban planning and will provide a focal point for the neighborhood. Well, the geography now is the same as it was then. I don’t know how it transformed itself from being so magnificent to nonviable. I wanted you folks to have that information just in case you consider it pertinent. I have some copies here of the exact article and I think you find that I have quoted it correctly. Thank you very much. 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Thank you, Mr. Chapman. The next speaker is Chantal Vandereyken to be followed by Rudy Batties. Ms. Chantal Vandereyken, Palo Alto: Good evening everyone. I have been a Palo Alto resident for 17 years. I live with my family on Waverly Street near Alma Plaza. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to vent my frustration over ten years regarding Alma Plaza. That feeling is good but most importantly thank you for the possibility to give my two cents. I sincerely hope to contribute in a very small way to a speedier and better compromise in that feat of strength between the three parties. The developer, Mr. McNellis, wants a maximum of profit, which is normal it is just his job. As the residents and neighbors want a maximum of quality of life it is fair too. And the City in charge of managing this conflict of interest and reaching the best solution possible reflecting what the majority of its citizens would like in a timely fashion. I wish I could have the power to mediate here and speed up the three parties, as it is obvious after ten years of mess that we are not doing a good job at compromising for reaching an agreement. I know not everything in the city will be to your liking but I wish I could say let’s share this parcel in half, one half for the developer so he could build houses and have his profit and on the second half build truly beautiful and people-friendly shopping center just to compensate the neighbors for the negative impacts the houses will have on our schools and infrastructures, i think we deserve it. I am just another frustrated neighbor of Alma Plaza. What more could I possibly say about this incredibly long and very sensitive situation. I don’t want to repeat too much what has already been said out of respect for all of you that no, I won’t talk about the frustration of thousands of middle-class Palo Altoans that have to go to other cities to get affordable food. No, I won’t talk about the significant revenue loss our city is enduring because of this situation. No, I won’t talk about the many of us who would love to walk, bike, shop, and do our part for global warming but simply cannot. No, I won’t talk about the depressing sight of the decrepit Alma Plaza that all South Palo Alto has to endure for so long and it is too shameful borderline surreal to me. No, I won’t talk about the 800 and more neighbors having to fight a rezc~ning plan for what was rightfully theirs in the first place, which was a much needed and decent food distribution place and a convenient location for that. So I think it is even more true now than ten years ago when the conflict started. Time changed and every resident in this neighborhood all are aware of that. Why don’t you ask us directly where the best and analysis available. So shall I talk about the fact that after ten years of status quo the City who is the final decision-maker has not taken any action on behalf of the majority of its needy citizens of South Palo Alto? Well I am afraid it is beyond me so I pass. However, I would love to talk about a specific thing regarding the latest design by Mr. McNellis. I have many things to say about this design. That long two-story fagade bordering Alma Street as nice as it could be built will hide the commercial center. Therefore I am afraid that if it is hidden it won’t strive period. Besides it shades the whole commercial space, how sad. This linear drive-by shopping does not invite lingering or meeting. The tiny park won’t be used by the public outside of the housing complex because it is too much on the side. So I think it is really not a very good design to give us. I am really adamant about design. I am sorry to say I think the success of this plaza will reside in a beautiful design more than square footage of who should go where. So that said, I would love to give some more input if you need for a real Page 17 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 public-friendly design. Let me know if you need my help but I am sure you can come up with something better for us. We deserve it. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Rudy Batties to be followed by Herb Borock. Mr. Rudy Batties, Palo Alto: Thank you Madam Chair. I live in the house just south of the site. I live adjacent to the site. We have been there seven years now and we have watched it deteriorate in that whole seven-year period. I rose in opposition to the original plan, the large grocery store from Albertson’s because it would add traffic, we get noise from tracks and delivery and it was not a very good plan. Tonight I am actually rising in favor of the current plan. I worked with the designers for this plan. They have come and taken in our input. I think most of the people on the cul-de-sac on Emerson Street favor this. I think it has a good mix of housing and retail. I particularly like the idea of a grocery store in that space. I think it will help with what we have had in that place. It has been blighted. Just this week we had the police have an incident in the lot next to our house. We get soccer balls and stuff thrown over the fence because they use it for a playground. So I would like to have something done there. I think this is an excellent plan. I am against the CN and in favor of the PC to get this going. We have waited too long. When we started this my son was being carried and now he is in third grade. I hope he is not in a nursing home by the time it is done which the way we are going he could be. So please, thank you for the time to speak, and I hope you approve the plan. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Herb Borock to be followed by Sheri Furman. Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Thank you Chair Holman. I urge you to recommend that the Council deny the PC application and initiate a rezoning to Neighborhood Commercial, CN. You can either recommend that the Council initiate the rezoning to CN or you can postpone sending your recommendation to deny the PC until after you have initiated the rezoning to CN and held the public hearing where you will have the opportunity to recommend a rezoning to CN. Trying to modify the PC application to look line a CN project is a meaningless exercise because the purpose of a PC zone is to define site development regulations that are not in any of the general zone districts in exchange for public benefits. In trying to modify the PC application by holding negotiations in this public hearing is a bad idea when either the Commission or the Council can simply initiate a rezoning to CN. Today’s Palo Alto Daily News provides substantial evidence that the proposed community room for the Pacific Art League is part of a larger project that includes the redevelopment of the current Pacific Art Leagu.e site across from the Civic Center. Therefore the community room for the Pacific Art League is a part of the current application then you have an incomplete application because it omits the proposal for the redevelopment of the Pacific Art League at its current location. Mr. Williams mentioned the difference between a private street and a public street. A major difference between the two is that a public right-of-way is excluded from the site area so that in a general zone like CN you would have less floor area allowed than you would if there was a 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 private street. A private street is included and a public is excluded from the site area and correspondingly there would be different floor area allowed. Mr. Williams also mentioned the Tentative Map application that was received before this application and gave examples of Tentative Map applications that were acted on after an application was approved for a project. There is a difference between the two. When you receive a Tentative Map application after the Council has approved the project the Tentative Map application is implementing a decision that the Council already made on environmental review and project approval. The current Tentative Map application would be a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act because it assumes a decision that has already been made on the project approval. Its main reason for being submitted at an early date in a piecemeal fashion was an attempt to evade the Quimby Act requirements that the Council has recently adopted. Mr. Emslie indicated that the BMR Agreement would come to you after the Council approved the project. In fact the BMR Agreement is part of a complete project application. You should have seen that now. The absence of a BMR Agreement means that you have an incomplete application. You need a signed BMR Agreement from the applicant before Staff even brought this project forward to you. You need to clarify something with Staffthat I am not familiar with and that is whether the current zoning code still contains a chapter or section that requires Site and Design Review for a mixed use project of residential and nonresidential. I know before the so-called streamlining changes were made that it did include such a requirement. If it does not then as part of your recommendation to the Council you would need to include the Site and Design overlay on the recommendation for a CN zone district. In a previous study such as the Gruen and Gruen study indicated that a .25 FAR was needed for retail if all parldng was surface parking. However, the same studyand those who participated in creating the site development regulations for zones such as CN indicated that they are feasible zones by having both housing and nonresidential that would then be able to finance structured or underground parldng for a higher FAR. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you, Mr. Borock. Sheri Furman to be followed by Bob Moss. Ms. Sheri Furman, Palo Alto: Good evening Chair Holman and Commissioners. I am here as part of Friends of Alma Plaza and I just have a couple of comments to make. Lest you wonder why we are not out in force we have pretty much said at the last meeting what we have to say. That is not a retail center. That is not a neighborhood center. I maintain that is a subdivision. What we are looking for is primarily retail with affordable housing, a true mixed use. Whether you decide it is PC, CN or some combination thereof basically we trust that you know your jobs and you will do what is right for the site. However, as the MRA Chair I can’t let slide the statement in the recent materials that you received over the weekend that Midtown is a true neighborhood center because of its layout. We Page 19 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 Midtown are very proud of our center. It provides one-stop shopping and a true gathering place. I just wanted to reaffirm that we are a neighborhood center. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you. Bob Moss to be followed by our final speaker, Carl York. Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Holman and Commissioners. I was very interested to see all the detail discussion of the Comprehensive Plan like the statement that the Comprehensive Plan is not ambiguous. What garbage. The Comprehensive Plan reminds me of nothing more than the Talmud. People can read that, read the Comprehensive Plan and come up with directly opposed positions on almost anything. I could give you many examples but I have seen the Staff come up with directly opposed positions by carefully cherry-picking particular items out of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is an interesting document. Reading this you think that you really ought to have a temple set up in the center of the room with the copy of the Comprehensive Plan in front of it and then as you all get in here we all genuflect to it because of the Comprehensive Plan. Let me put it in perspective. Many years ago John Burwald told me when he was first elected to the Council he was going through his orientation section and we got to talking about zoning and land use and he was introduced to the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan has three key features. One, it is comprehensive. Two, it is only a plan. Three, it can be amended at any time on one week’s notice. Some of the comments made earlier today were kind of amusing and also some of the ones in this letter. For example saying that the garage does not count against FAR because the garage does not count against FAR in the RM-15 zone. You do not have before you an RM-15 application. You have a PC application and a site, which is identified on the zoning map as CN and garages do count. When you are told that CN is supposed to be an emotional thing that it doesn’t really restrict you. What garbage. The CN zone was created specifically t° require and to prohibit particular uses. It was not a feeling. It was a zoning ordinance. It was a way of controlling what is built and prohibiting what should not be built. The PC zone of course is a crapshoot. It is a standard let’s call it great hope for a developer who is going to offer you something like the park. As Chairman Holman pointed out you have a letter from that says when the park is maintained by the homeowner’s association that becomes a private piece of property. I have confirmed that with people, officers of the Green Meadow Association. There is no way the public will be allowed in that park if the homeowner’s association is required to maintain it and to pay for it. If they did and anybody was in any way injured they would be liable. Their homeowner’s association dues restrict the use of that property to only the people who are paying dues. People can be invited in. People can be asked to participate but if that park is paid for by the homeowner’s association saying that that is a public benefit is a lie because the public doesn’t benefit. What you have before you is an option for example if you put this in CN we won’t build a grocery store. We have lost three grocery stores in Palo Alto in the last ten years. We are short of grocery stores. If you go to an entrepreneur and you say I want to put a store in Alma Plaza would you like to put a grocery store in there they will beat down the doors to put a grocery store 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 42 43 44 45 46 in there. You don’t have to have a PC zone that explicitly says thou shalt build a grocery store in order to have a grocery store in Alma Plaza. All you have to have is a quality development with adequate retail so that the other stores can feed the grocery store, which means you need between 30 and 40,000 square feet of total retail on the site and any housing that goes in is an afterthought. If it fits fine, if it doesn’t fit get rid of it. This is a shopping area, a completely compatible, completely acceptable, completely successful shopping area. When the Staff tells you that it had low sales per square foot they are using a 55,000 square foot figure for total space on that site. Not true. Alma Plaza has never had more than 39,000 square feet of ground floor retail plus a maximum of 5,000 square feet of office. On a dollar per square foot basis it was one of the most successful shopping centers in Palo Alto in the 1990s. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you, Mr. Moss. Our final speaker is Carl York. Mr. Carl York, Palo Alto: Hi I live on Alma Street about a half mile from Alma Plaza. I feel like a stranger in a strange land. I have no idea what you people are talking about. Most of the language I have heard tonight means nothing to me because I am not an expert in any of this. I am just an expert in living down the street from Alma Plaza. I want to add my voice to the chorus of the frustrated and the angry. I don’t know how many angry people you have gotten in here but I am angry. I have lived down the street for ten years. The lack of leadership in this matter from this body and from the City Council is stunning to me it is just stunning. For one of these speakers to come up here and talk about how proud he is that he that stopped the last grocery store from going in there just makes me want to throw up as does this presentation. It makes me sick to my stomach. I have a son who has developmental disabilities, he lives with me, he doesn’t drive, he doesn’t have a bicycle, he won’t ride a bicycle, he walks everywhere. If you don’t know, one of the challenges of integrating a person with developmental disabilities into the community is to get them into the community and have a place in the community where they can go. When I moved here there was a place there where he could go. Now there is not and now he is 20 and now it is time for him to learn to go out and get his own food, and go out and get his own services in the community. In the last two months he has gotten lost twice trying to find Midtown. I don’t know what this means to you. I know it doesn’t seem to mean much to the developer. I look at this plan and I don’t see anything there for him. The population of the developmentally disabled is virtually ignored by most of our daily and weekly -- most of what we do in the world ignores what their needs are. I am not here to say that we have plan around the developmentally disabled people. I am just here to say you have one living right down the street and he can’t integrate into the community because we don’t have one. I am very angry about it. I just had to come here tonight and let you lcnow that. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you, Mr. York. The applicant or his representative will have an opportunity to make final comments for five minutes. Mr. Jim Baer, Applicant: I want to thank the Commissioners for enduringmy letter March 23, which I know is both challenging and imperfect. I am here to answer any questions that you feel are necessary. If your protocol permits to call me outside of this public hearing for those things you feel need to be corrected. Page 21 ~5 i 6 7 10 11 12 14 15 17 19 20 ¯22 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 You question was what is the applicant’s attitude about the CN zone. Here is a thought. What we all have some sense of clarity about is that there is some end game that takes place with the Council taking some action that must face the neighbors with the powers to referend and that that is clearly on the mind of the Council when it considers what is the balance to achieve and succeed at. When we hear neighbors talk about their frustrations over many years with this shopping center and the next steps with the shopping center it seems to me that it would be best if we were able to present to the Council a couple of choices. Here would be a suggestion. One would be to initiate the action for a CN zone change. Whether you in that initiation deny or recommend a CN zone change that step is necessary for the City Council to be able to consider a CN zone. If you recommendation to deny it on a PC zone with modifications that constitute a denial from what is here it goes to the City Council. If in their choice they say we don’t see how we are going to legislate a circumstance that meets the requirements of the neighbors and satisfies the constraints of the Comprehensive Plan or consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and they made the decision to initiate a CN zone it would come back to the Planning Commission and would have to come back to the City Council whether it was with an affirmative or negative recommendation from the Planning Commission. So my hope would be that the Commission think about where this goes to Council that you initiate a CN zone change. Again, I am not advocating that you accept the CN zone change because it has its defects. Can’t compel a grocery store. If that is not satisfactory to you that you may choose not to recommend it on to Council unless there was some mechanism by which you could achieve the type of retail that you want. I don’t know whether - I can understand if that is not advice that you would wish to take. But when we look at the frustration and part of what my letter was trying to do in establishing a base following the lead of a number of Commissioners at the last Planning Commission hearing is that in this whole mix of leadership with an applicant who has been at the process for a long time with neighbors, some of whom are new to the leadership role in the Alma Plaza and some of whom have been with great durability in their roles as leaders with respect to Alma Plaza, there was some sense of false expectation that has been created about that somehow there is an entitlement by a neighborhood to 35 or 40,000 feet of retail, as a matter of right under the Comprehensive Plan. What I am asking the Commission to be clear about is to say in its action ofrezoning all the CN district, which carries precisely the same land use designation as Alma Plaza, which places a minimum 15 percent ground floor retail and a maximum of 40 percent commercial at a maximum of .5 residential that we need to kind of embrace that that’s really the extent of the Comprehensive Plan dictates that apply to this property. With the hope that the neighbors will help us formulate a compromise that starts with that grounding this isn’t the site that will be developed with 35,000 feet of retail. It will remain undeveloped. But is it a site that can be developed at something that comes close to the CN boundaries of site development and that has conditions imposed whether by variance or whether by PC zone that creates some successful outcome that is a compromised outcome. We really need the help with neighbor leaders to understand that we can’t compel a development that an applicant is unwilling to do but what we can do is look to the guidelines of the CN zone, which apply to 75 similarly situated parcels under the same Comprehensive Plan designation. Interestingly, and this whole risk of referendum is one that we know doesn’t necessarily influence the land use decision- making that the Planning Commission would recommend but it clearly would be on the mind of the Council to try to figure out how to articulate that this really is a compromise consistent with the Comprehensive Plan wherever that arrives at. 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 One comment made by a speaker which I think makes a lot of sense is how do you fill substantial ground floor area in this location not as compelled but as a matter of economic reality, a grocery store is a significant part of that. It isn’t going to be 25,000 feet of nail salon. So I am glad to answer any questions. I hope I have been clear in suggesting that arriving at the Council with a CN zone recommendation or initiation and a Planned Community zone gives the greatest power to the Council to move this forward with many more opportunities for the Planning Commission to have Site and Design Review and other control. Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Mr. Baer, in addition to the corrections that Staff has already made to several of the assertions in the letter that we received last Friday one of the most fundamental ones that I wanted to see if we can arrive at some agreement on because it is alluded to in a number of places in your argument is that the Planning Commission back in March took the position that retail may not be reduced in this area as a result of the Comprehensive Plan. The current retail is 45,000 square feet at that site or historic. The Planning Commission recommended at least 30,000. So the recommended amount is a third and the current is 50 percent more than what the Planning Commission recommended. So on what basis did you repeatedly assert that the Commission position to Council was that retail could not be reduced and then you proceeded to quote Council Members in response to your own assertion? Mr. Baer: I would be glad to prepare the DVD as we did at the Council Meeting of your initiating the comments that said we, as Commissioners are duty bound to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. As I read L-37, Commissioner Burt, then Chair, you said, and it says we may not change the scale of retail and as I read that that means we can’t reduce this retail area. You made that statement forcefully and repeatedly. Another Commissioner followed with the same language. Then in a compromise position after taking one that created expectations on behalf of neighborhood leaders who continue to use that position in white papers and in neighborhood meetings you said, but as an accommodation and in the spirit of compromise why don’t we accept that amount of retail which is equal to the next smallest retail neighborhood center that we have? I think is something like 30 or 35,000 feet. In the last meeting, March 8, three weeks ago, you reiterated a comment and said, when I suggested that we be somewhere between 30 and 35,000 1 was mistaken because Staff had presented to us a schedule that show that the other neighborhood centers are in fact quite larger than that. So that you were acknowledging that you were even more gracious by accepting something less reduced. I can’t help but add one other comment, Commissioner Burt, which is you said to me before this application was submitted that you expected this application to go down on a seven to zero vote. When I asked you what about the Council’s comments, your comment back to me was, I am going to act like the Kennedy’s during the Missile Crisis, they ignored Khrushchev’s letter. I think that Council’s directions on May 1 were so inconsistent with general policy that I personally will take the position to ignore that. So if you were to ask what is the basis by which this applicant thinks that this Commission took positions that were inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and inconsistent with the duty to apply established policy in a fair and judicious way, when I said it failed to meet a quasi-judicial standard I didn’t mean that in a technical legal way. What I meant is that you do have a reviewing body in the City Council who Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 do look at whether they think that the policies as articulated by this Commission were responsible or not. Those of you who looked at the tape saw very clearly what the first question was from the Council in response to their reading of the minutes and their response to what they heard as the interpretation presented under your leadership and followed by a couple of other Commissioners that the Comprehensive Plan dictated that L-37 meant we may not reduce this area but in our leadership to create a compromise we will. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garberl you had a question? Commissioner Garber: Before my question just a comment. I would like to recommend that addressing comments to direct Commissioners be curtailed and address us as a body. For the Commissioners I would like to suggest, this is only a recommendation I am not the Chair, that the Commissioners attempt to address the issues not specifically to the actions on the applicant’s team but to substantive ones that are of interest and import to the community as a whole. To that end my question is actually for the applicant. Is the applicant actually here? May I ask you to come forward? Mr. John McNellis, Applicant: Hi, I am John McNellis. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Regardless if the property is a PC zone or a CN zone everything that I have heard thus far suggests that the market as well as the immediate community demand is looking for a grocery store. Is there some reason that regardless of what the zoning ends up being assuming that there is some retail on the property is there any reason why you would not search for a grocery store to be a tenant on the property? Mr. McNellis: Absolutely not, there is no reason. Commissioner Garber: That is my only question. Thank you. Chair Holman: I had one question for either Mr. McNellis or Mr. Baer. I have always understood, not having the fact behind it but always understood, that when Piazza’s was thinking of opening a store at the Charleston Center that they had polled the neighbors to see what they wanted to see at that center and that grocery store. Let’s assume that that’s accurate. Would you as the developer have interest in polling neighbors to see what they would like to see in a grocery there? You have a plan, you have talked to different grocers, would you have interest or be willing to talk with neighbors about what other kinds of retail they would like to see there? I don’t know how many hundreds of people now that have signed a petition so I am understanding or hoping that those people who signed a petition to support X amount of retail are going to support a shopping center that has retail there. So would you be interested in talking to those neighbors doing a survey of what kind of uses they would like to see there to help support the success? Mr. McNellis: Of course, in fact we have already done that. We attended a meeting with the Midtown residents about a year back where we discussed what kinds of uses they would like to see there, hence the caf~, hence the dry cleaners, hence the market. The market is a given but it is going to be difficult to get a market. We don’t have one today but the market makes sense. 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 Chair Holman: Thank you for that. Any other questions? I would subscribe to the comments of Commissioner Garber regarding addressing questions. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: There have been a variety of discussions about what might be public benefit. I would like to ask you a hypothetical question and sort of get your reaction to that if may. What I am wondering is it seems to me that - let me explain where the question comes from. Part of the idea of having mixed use and having the residential is to enable profits from the residential essentially to pay for the development of retail. That is my understanding of the idea behind mixed use with residential being so valuable these days. What I am wondering is whether it is reasonable to think of a public benefit as malting sure that the rents on the retail were affordable so as to help ensure the success of those endeavors. Mr. McNellis: I wasn’t part of the Comprehensive Plan and the CN zoning but I don’t think it is economics that are really driving it. I think a franker recognition of the various site’s limitations. To the extent that you have a narrow deep site retail is tricky to put in the sites. I think it was driven by what could actually go there from a land use planning not from a gee, let’s support the retail with housing. Because actually until fairly recently, certainly the last half dozen years, once upon a time retail land was considerably more valuable than residential. This is like what they talk about in financial the inverted yield curve. This has just happened and particularly so here in Palo Alto in recent years. Before that it wasn’t the case. I don’t think economics were driving that. Certainly not in 1992 when the recommendations came out to put housing in the back on this site. The way it is now just the cost of these buildings, the retail is going to be subsidized in effect no matter what. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: Mr. McNellis I have a question for you as someone who had developed lots and lots of retail shopping centers or rehabbed them as I underStand it. Do you have a sense for what percentage of sales from a grocery store are taxable? Mr. McNellis: Sure, about 60 to 65 percent of grocery sales are not taxable. It depends. On a little grocer let’s say a JJ&F they don’t have that much that is taxable. What is taxable are the paper goods, the aspirin and so on. To an extent it is a pure market, essentially the smaller the market they less they are taxable. They are all kind of mixing together so Long’s is almost selling groceries now. Of course the supermarkets are the other way now they have dry cleaners and they have banks. So it is getting trickier but the old standard was about 65 percent. Commissioner Tuma: A market of the size that is being discussed here, let’s call it 15,000 square feet more or less, it is about 65 percent or less? Mr. McNellis: To be honest with you I have never built a market this small. Supermarkets in this day and age are considerably larger. They are 60 to 65,000 feet. My guess it would be - tax revenue should not be considered here. They are going to be pretty slight for a small market. Commissioner Tuma: Thanks. Page 25 1 2 Chair Holman: Any other questions, Commissioners? Seeing none we will close the public 3 comment. Thank you. Thank you Mr. McNellis. Thank you members of the public who came 4 either for the first time or came back to address this. So I am closing the public comment and go 5 to the Commission for questions for Staff. Commissioner Tuma. 6 7 Commissioner Tuma: A question for Staff. Can you address the issue of if the maintenance of 8 the park is paid for by the HOA how that impacts the public availability of the park and how this 9 would work? 10 11 Mr. Larkin: There is some misunderstanding. The park as I understand it would be proposed as 12 a publicly dedicated park. The City would assume liability the HOA would assume maintenance 13 responsibility but the HOA would have no means for restricting access to the park. It would be 14 open as any other park. 15 16 Commissioner Tuma: If I might just a direct follow up to that. So what happens if the HOA 17 bails and just stops maintaining it? As a practical matter what would happen? 18 .19 Mr. Larkin: We would require a provision in the CC&Rs that requires their maintenance and it 20 would allow the City authority to enforce that. We would enforce it through our normal code 21 enforcement mechanisms. 22 23 Chair Holman: Other Commissioner questions? Commissioner Keller. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. A couple of things. First a comment about looking at the 26 Comprehensive Plan. It looks like Alma Plaza is not served by public transit and therefore 27 Program L-38 doesn’t seem to apply. 28 29 The second thing is the issue about CN underlying zoning sortof an underlying land use 30 designation. There is CN land use designation that is within neighborhood centers and there is 31 CN land use designation that is outside of neighborhood centers. What I am wondering is the 32 extent to which the fact that this is within a neighborhood center gives some more guidance as to 33 what we should do as contrasted with the general notion of that neighborhood serving 34 commercial. 35 36 Mr. Williams: The zoning doesn’t make a distinction between the two. The Comprehensive 37 Plan has some policies specific to neighborhood centers that aren’t necessarily applicable to 38 every CN parcel in the community. So I think there is some expectation of some mix of uses, 39 some mix of service uses in a neighborhood center that might not happen on an individual 40 smaller CN parcel but there isn’t any real specific guidance as to how you go about that. It 41 probably is the reason why we get PCs on some neighborhood centers because there is desire to 42 do something a little different, maybe a little bigger or a little different mix than you would 43 typically have. The PC is one way to get at doing some different things on a litter larger CN 44 parcel than you would have typically under a CN zoning review. There isn’t I don’t think 45 anything specific about guidance in there I think there are just the more general policies about 46 neighborhood centers and their purposes in the city. 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 46 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. One last question is there was a lot of discussion about the study session that this Commission had and the subsequent Council study session on an earlier version of this project. Subsequent to that there was a direction, as I understand it from when I joined the Commission to do some rezoning of properties to CN and to change the zoning regulations of CN zones to limit the ability to have standalone housing and to preserve retail to the extent feasible. What I am wondering is to what extent should the Commission consider the directions of the Council from August as part of our guidance for the kind of land use decisions that we make? Mr. Williams: You are certainly correct that since you saw this project last that there has been this direction from Council to look at commercial zoning to prohibit standalone residential housing, and specifically to rezone some sites that are currently residential to commercial to try to protect retail potential on those sites. That is something you should consider as part of your deliberations. It is part of the reason why we did have at least the minimum FAR in the CN zone. Again there are a lot of things to consider as part of the PC in terms of public benefits and those things too. So it is not anyone thing that is guiding you it is a combination of the Comprehensive Plan and this and what public benefits you think you can derive from the project. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt, you have questions. Commissioner Burt: Yes. In RM-15 the garages do not count officially against the floor area. In CN zones you had made some comments, Curtis at our last meeting, in a PC how should that be treated? Mr. Williams: Well, in the CN zone garages also do not count. I just looked that up after Mr. Moss brought that up. In all nonresidential and multi-family districts garages that are serving permitted or conditional uses on the site are excluded from gross floor area. Again, a PC is a legislative consideration and you are looking at the overall intensity of development and size of units and everything else. So I think whether it is looking at it specifically as how the garages are counted or looking overall at the size of units that is within your discretion to determine whether those things create a compatible environment for the site, whether the mix of residential and commercial is appropriate. So you have some latitude there that I don’t think you have in a CN or an RM-15 zone if that is what you are asking. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert you have a follow up? Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes, to follow up on that would the same apply if you had two car garages? Generally most of our ordinances currently speak to if you have the first covered parking space that is required but a second covered parking space is not required therefore if somebody wanted two covered parking spaces would we not count both covered parking spaces as floor area? 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Williams: The code doesn’t make that distinction and in practice we have not counted garage spaces as floor area in these projects. So it doesn’t say only the minimum required parldng spaces. It says garages that are accessory to the permitted or conditional uses on the site. So as long as it is not somebody creating a commercial garage there for somebody off the site it is generally excluded from the floor area calculation. Vice-Chair Lippert: I have one other question for the City Attorney with regard to street easements. Is it desirable to take the access on the site and create street easements or access easements in terms of the public being able to go through the site and then also putting an easement in the area of the park? Access to the park is what I am looking for. Mr. Larkin: There would be a desire to create access to the park. It would be one way and that is the only way to guarantee access to the park is to have access to it. So that is probably something that would be desirable. I think Curtis has already addressed the issue with regards to private versus public streets. Vice-Chair Lippert: Then one other question is the parking associated on the site for visitor parldng would a certain percentage of that be permitted or be allocated towards the park if there was somebody that wanted to drive to the park and would they be permitted to park there and use the park? Mr. Larkin: I think that is a planning question. Chair Holman: If you would like a minute I think Commissioner Garber has a question. So if you want to ask your question while that is being explored. Commissioner Garber: It is related but there was a comment and you may have just answered it I wasn’t quite sure so I may ask you to repeat yourself but there was a question that came from the public regarding the calculation of FAR when the street is public versus when the street is private, i.e., in the private streets the lots are larger. Can you separate those issues and the impacts to this particular project for us? Mr. Williams: If a project were subdivided so that then there were public streets and then you came in with a development separate from that you would exclude the public streets. But when it is all part and parcel of one development like this it is correct that those streets gets considered in as far as FAR and density for the whole site. To not do that and if you had to exclude those streets would probably result in the applicants looking more at condo developments and not being able to do these more transitional units because they wouldn’t want to give up the square footage that those streets represent. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Whether it was condo developments or something else the impact would be that the likelihood is the developer would be looking for some sort of denser use of the remaining property that is available to be built on. 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 45 46 Mr. Williams: I think that is the way it would play out. In this case it is 12.5 units per acre so maybe they would look at a higher rate but certainly I would think look at denser in certain areas. Overall it might not be much denser than what it proposed. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: A question maybe I should have asked before it is a clarifying question about the applicability of the Quimby Act. IfI understand from Staff’s memo technically because there has not been final approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map we would be within our legal rights to apply the Quimby Act here. Is that correct? Mr. Emslie: That is correct. Commissioner Tuma: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: A follow on to that. Is it correct that within the latitude of a PC we could place a public open space requirement that would be roughly equivalent to what we have in the Quimby Act? Mr. Emslie: Yes, you can do that as well. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: A separate topic. Would you please review again why BMRs as rentals does not work or would not be utilized in the CN zone versus some other zone? That was a comment that was made by the initial presentation. Maybe I am mis-remembering that. Mr. Williams: I am not sure what that referred to. Do you? Mr. Emslie: I think that maybe the reference was that because the CN did not require a public benefit and one of the benefits of the PC was this rental housing. Commissioner Garber: So rental versus for sale. Mr. Emslie: Right. If it was a non-PC project and the units were ownership then we would get our percentage of those as ownership BMRs. Commissioner Garber: Understood, thank you. Chair Holman: Curtis. 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 Mr. Williams: Just to get back to the parking question I think Beth has an answer on the parking regarding the park. Ms. Beth Bourne, Senior Planner: The site plan does show 25 spaces around the park but if you look in the table provided on sheet 4-1 it does shows the parking counts. It shows the required parking based on the residential, the retail, and the BMR components and that comes out to 209 required spaces and that is what is provided. So there are no additional spaces that are only set aside for the park. Vice-Chair Lippert: So the answer to the question is that because it is for the residents there would be no parking spaces for people that wanted to drive to the park to use it. Ms. Bourne: The spaces are located around the park so if the spaces weren’t being used for the retail or guests of the residential they would be available for the park users. Vice-Chair Lippert: I guess the question I am asking is if the spaces are for the residents and they are marked as such or the residents’ guests. If somebody from the public drove in and parked there would they be subject to being towed? Mr. Williams: These spaces are not for the residents or designated for the residents. They primarily serve the retail and then about four of them immediately border the park square there. So there are spaces immediately adjacent to them. They are generally available to the public but the calculation of parking requirements doesn’t add anything on for somebody who might come just to go to the park. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, so generally you see in commercial lots postings that say for customers. If someone were to park there to go to the park and the retail tenant said you are using my customer’s parking here do they have the right to have those cars towed? Mr. Larldn: That could be a requirement of the PC ordinance that parking be allowed for people who want to use the park. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Yes, a couple of things. One is there was an assertion by Mr. Baer regarding the amount of minimum FAR that would apply to retail if there was a Quimby or other park dedication. What I am wondering is does the FAR, and I presume that it would be for both minimum retail and housing and anything, get reduced for Quimby or park dedication? Mr. Williams: I would assume that we are looking at the whole package with a PC and that it does not. Don and I haven’t had a chance to tall{ about that but if it were excluded for that I would think it is also excluded for FAR and density and those purposes too. It has to be consistent one way or the other. Going in we would assume that that area is included as part of the entire parcel in terms of calculating the retail square footage, the density, the FAR, everything. 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The next question is I am still learning how BMR housing works. So I am wondering to the extent to which the BMR housing is considered bonus space or somehow not counted even if it is required as part of the 39 housing units that are included. I am wondering could you try to explain that a little bit better for me? Mr. Williams: I don’t know that I know how it is not counted either unless we are looking at some state laws that have provisions for affordable housing and providing incentives or concessions for development but we haven’t explored that with this project or in any level of detail particularly since it is a PC. Commissioner Keller: Is a BMR Agreement supposed to be part of a PC package or does it come later? What is the usual practice for this? Mr. Larldn: The BMR Agreement follows on the project approval. There is no way to know what the BMR Agreement is going to contain until we know how many units are going to be built and what they are going to be like. A BMR Agreement typically covers both the number of BMR units, any in lieu fees that are to be paid, the location in the project of those units, and a number of other things that just can’t be determined until we actually have a pretty concrete look at what the project is going to ultimately be developed as. Commissioner Keller: Van Meter William Pollock in a letter that you gave us which I believe was also an attachment to the September 27 PTC meeting where we evaluated the CN zoning ordinance update. It was talking about the percentage of required retail. Also attached to that was an Attachment M a few pages earlier that talked about the notion of primarily retail mixed use in a commercial zone versus primarily commercial mixed use in a commercial zone. I am wondering whether there is some guidance you can give us with respect to a neighborhood center whether we would expect that to be primarily retail or primarily commercial. Mr. Williams: i am not sure we can. The scenarios that were played out there by Van Meter Williams Pollock showed two scenarios that were primarily residential and two that were primarily retail. So it showed both of those alternatives and indicated sort of what constraints in our current ordinances, limited or focused on that. Right now prior to at least our recent amendments to the CN parking was the big constraint and the height not being able to go to three stories on the residential portion was a constraint on the residential. So there were various constraints and what it did was indicate that there were a number of different ways to approach a site like larger neighborhood commercial site to either mix up the commercial the commonality among them was that the commercial was towards the front and the residential was in the rear, and that under kind of the best circumstance there probably would be about a .25 FAR unless you got to do structure parking. Commissioner Keller: I think that there were 6A and 6B, which was for the predominantly residential, where A was for the old process and B was for a revision to the ordinance. And 7A and 7B which were primarily commercial, primarily retail, with 7A being before the ordinance change and 7B being after the ordinance change. I notice that there is a design for 7B that has .56 of residential FAR which is quite substantial and nonresidential FAR of .29 that they seem to 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 have figured out how to shoehorn into a 4.1-acre site. What is amazing is that Alma Plaza, I don’t know if this kind of uncanny but Alma Plaza is a 4.2-acre site. The main difference between this design here and the Alma Plaza design is that the Alma Plaza site has two or three depending on how you count them accesses to Alma Street and no access for cars to Ramona while the design that is envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan prototype has one access to the equivalent of Alma and one access to the equivalent of Ramona. So I am wondering whether this interesting design exercise that was done by Van Meter Williams and Pollock might be an example of what could happen at this site. Mr. Williams: It is an example. It is obviously overstated in terms of allowable floor area because you can’t exceed .5 for the residential portion under CN at least and they have been able with their scenario to get structured parking on the site under this analysis. I think the operative design feature that you have mentioned is that they have created a grid out of the site which is in a scenario without the specific neighborhoods and streets and everything fine to do once you get connected to the neighborhood whether that is feasible or not comes into play. I think what is useful is that they have created something that has sort of central point to it and some of these diagrams had a little circle or park right smack in the middle of the project that linked to the residential and linked back to the commercial. So those kinds of design features might be useful in looking at this site. Commissioner Keller: So one last follow up. If one was to take the excess amount of residential and convert that on the second floor because I assume that the residential is primarily on the second floor in a lot of this, at least the part that is over the retail, if one were take a sufficient amount of that housing and have it instead be office use like medical office or things like that I expect that the requirement for parking would go down -- let me start again. That would still be within the .4 FAR allowed for commercial use and it would allow for uses of medical offices for which there is a significant need or other kinds of office. So I am wondering whether that would allow the design to be accommodated for this site and still fit within the appropriate caps that we have. Mr. Williams: It might but it is very speculative as to what that would result in particularly in terms of trip generation and those kinds of things because it is a completely different scenario than what we are looking at and much more intense than what we are looking at and similar to what that prototype looked at. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Chair Holman: I have just a few questions and then when we finish our questions we will take a short break. I commented last time that as I recalled previous conversations about various shopping centers that having a number of parcels which would indicate also different owners is difficult to manage and difficult to require an integrated shopping experience. So would Staff care to comment on the PC proposal as it is presented because it had different parcels recommended or suggested? Mr. Emslie: I think in general you want to associate similar interests and similar site control. So you want to essentially if you are doing mixed use I think you want to get the site control or 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 ownership of the residential in one fashion and generally in rental it is not an issue because it wouldn’t involve parcelization necessarily. But in the condos you would do that through a homeowner’s association and that would be the common interest that would govern the rules of that. In retail or shopping centers when you divide up different shopping centers and Edgewood you may be familiar is an example where we have four parcels that all have different owners that are interacting because it is all one center. There is an office, gas station, supermarket, former supermarket, and stores and all have different owners or are at least on different parcels. That can present some challenges when you have something functioning as a unit that has different interests because owners will have different goals and objectives of what they want and how they want to dispose of their asset that don’t always coincide. So it can become a problem if you have a similar use under different owners. Chair Holman: Thank you. Grocery stores require specific design and this is going to be kind of a no-brainer question but I just want to be assured of this. Because grocery stores do require as I say specific planning, interior planning, that would be under the purview of ARB. They would do the exterior, would they also do the interior? I guess what I am looking for is some kind of assurance that a grocery store would be designed in such a fashion that it would support the success of a grocery store. I am looking for some kind of encouragement along that line. Mr. Williams: Well ARB looks at obviously mostly the exterior. They look at sort of the functionality of the interior but that is not really obviously their primary purview and it is little of their review. So what they are looking at is does that sort of affect where the doors and windows are and those kinds of things more so than being sure it is viable. Now I am sure to the extent that there is any particular experience on the part of any of the individual Board Members as to the functionality of and effectiveness of a successful grocery store that they will offer comments if they see something that looks out of place but I don’t know that we can or should rely on ARB to verify that the grocery store is in fact designed in a way that will make it successful on the interior. I don’t think we really have a process, a review process, to do that in terms of the economic viability of the store. Chair Holman: I understand we can’t assure it no matter how it is designed but I was looking for some kind of assurance that best practices for grocery stores could be applied and if it is interior maybe that isn’t the purview of the ARB but certainly on the exterior and circulation. Mr. Williams: That definitely would and I didn’t want to imply that ARB doesn’t see the interior. They will see floor plans and details of what is going on inside. So that will come to them as part of their plan review. Chair Holman: Also, we received two or three copies of the comparison of the proposal to CN zoning. There was a discrepancy on one aspect of it so I would like to confirm that the number of variances that would be required for this, for instance on some of the provided materials it indicates that because there is 30-foot front setback that it would require a variance and in other documents that we have been provided don’t indicate that. So can I get confirmation of which is accurate, please? Page 33 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. ’Williams: As far as the front I think what we wanted to say, I don’t know if it came through clearly in the tables or not is that under the PC there would be a variance because the PC itself does not grant variances from special setback. It can grant variances from a regular setback but not from a special setback like along Alma Street. The CN zone on the other hand if it were applied allows the flexibility for the ARB to grant that in again furthering the concept of bringing the building towards the front. So a variance is not required there. So there would be a variance required under the PC to do that and under strict CN zoning the ARB could look at that and grant the lesser setback without a variance. Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. And then the other variances that I noticed were for the proposed PC project was interior side yard would require a variance. Then the other one was daylight plane for the lot lines abutting the residential districts and that would require DEEs or variances. So I just want to make sure those are the variances that would be required for the proposal. Ms. Bourne: That is correct. The PC requirements do have special regulations when it is adjacent to another residential site. So in this case the property to the north on Ramona Street being residential there would be the daylight plane and setbacks that would be required. Chair Holman: Thank you. I think I may have maybe just one more question. When the Commission fairly recently under the Zoning Ordinance Update changed the development standards for the CN zone was it anticipated on the part of Staff that that might be applied to neighborhood centers? Mr. Williams: It was anticipated that it might be applied, yes. Whether it was looked at to treat neighborhood centers any differently I would say no, I don’t think we looked at that scenario and said well, maybe we ought to have some different standards for neighborhood centers as opposed to all other CN properties. We did understand that it would apply to neighborhood centers they would just be larger parcels that had those minimums and allowable maximums too. We also didn’t assume that everyone builds to the minimum on retail. Chair Holman: The reason I asked that is because there were stated concerns about the .15 that was adopted to such an extent that we asked for this to come back to us in a year so we could see what had transpired and if it was problematic. The discussion was around potentially elimination or loss of existing retail given especially Council’s more recent directions. The question in this is I guess for me I don’t remember having conversation about or discussion about this maybe being applied to neighborhood centers. The question in this is would it be appropriate from Staff’s perspective to have a special zoning for neighborhood centers, special zoning standards for neighborhood centers to provide the specificity that apparently we don’t seem to have right now? Mr. Williams: I don’t know I think that is a policy judgment the Commission and Council would have to make. I don’t think we see that that’s necessarily beneficial. I assume that your point is towards increasing the minimum FAR for commercial. -. i Page34 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 Chair Holman: My point is just in general. One of the criticisms of the PC has been from different fronts that there is not enough specificity to it. When it comes to vital areas that compliment our residential neighborhoods I was just wondering what Staff’s thought was about having a specific zoning district or standard for neighborhood centers. Mr. Williams: We could look and see if that made sense. I would just point out that what we had before this was no minimum and the same maximum and the same maximum in residential. So we have come some ways and we could certainly go back and look and see if there is some justification. As you will recall with the Rick Williams memo that Mr. Keller was referencing before there was some discussion of larger sites maybe being able to have some more flexibility with that so it might justify it. It might be based more on site size than specifically whether it is called a neighborhood center or not. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert did you have a follow up? Vice-Chair Lippert: I did. This is regarding the potential variance on the 30-foot front yard setback. My understanding of variances is that there would need to be findings for an unreasonable hardship being that there were site constraints that would not allow the applicant or the property owner to make their plan work. With a site that is 4.6 acres how can we make findings for something that would be an unreasonable hardship? Mr. Williams: We would have to look at that but I think that right off the bat the fact that this is a commercial area on the street is one of not very many in this circumstance. The frontage relative to the depth of the lot is significant in terms of trying to bring as much commercial up to the front as possible is what comes immediately to mind but we would have to sit down and craft something and get more specific than that. Vice-Chair Lippert: But if you were to look at other sites that were let’s say Neighborhood Commercial zones quite frequently you do have the retail portion actually pushed back and those centers manage to thrive quite well. Charleston Shopping Center is an example. So from my point of view or what I am thinldng of is it is not any different than say Charleston Shopping Center or other shopping centers that have the same frontage. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Keller: To follow up on this 30-foot setback issue it seems to me that - what I am wondering is the extent to which there is some flexibility in here. So is it possible to consider the idea that we are allowing an applicant to take the space that would otherwise be open space in the 30-foot setback and after allowing for say a 12-foot sidewalk say that that space would be open space behind the project to make for additional retail type space or outdoor space? You could for example put say outdoor tables for a restaurant or people to eat on this space and I am sort of wondering if putting that space behind it would be a nicer place to put it but that would be some space somewhere. 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 Chair Holman: If I might I think Commissioner Lippert’s question was there are findings that have to be made and if I interpreted correctly and I think your question is a separate one. Not inappropriate but separate. Commissioner Keller: Yes it is separate it is not a direct follow up but the issue is can we create something of form that we are going to require that space but it would be somewhere else, on the other side of a commercial building rather than in front of the commercial building? Mr. Williams: I guess we are starting to get into the details of site layout and I am a little concerned that we are going to get buried in that and not be able to talk about the big picture of the appropriate intensity, mix of uses, and CN versus PC and that kind of thing. I think our suggestion has been to deal with those higher level issues and then there is either a PC development plan process that you review through ARB and the Commission or the Site and Design process that would do the same thing and allow you at that point to determine the more specific design components. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Remind me, in the CN zone or any of the multi-family residential zones, are there open space requirements that kick in for the size of development or what causes open space to be required in any one of those zones in one way or another? Mr. Williams: In which zones? Commissioner Garber: In CN or any of the multi-family zones. Mr. Williams: There are requirements. There are basically two levels of requirements. There is one that is landscape/open space, which is a percentage of the property, which in CN is 35 percent. So 35 percent has to be provided either as landscaped area or it could be a plaza or it could be a balcony on somebody’s unit. Then there are the specific usable open space requirements, which are the ones that are immediately adjacent to the residential units being used by the residential units that are a subset of that 35 percent. So they count towards that 35 percent but for instance there is like 150 square feet of usable open space required per unit in I don’t know which district it is but one of them and they all have somewhat different open space requirements. Commissioner Garber: So there is a subset that the zone requires be essentially immediately adjacent to the unit and then there is some that is shared. Mr. Williams: Right. It has some private that is immediately adjacent and it does also allow for some common as long as it is readily accessible and usable by the residents. Commissioner Garber: The aggregate is 35 percent. Mr. Williams: The aggregate of that plus the landscape area is 35 percent. Page 36 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 Garber: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller I think you had a couple more questions and then I think we should take a break. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Earlier Chair Holman enumerated a list of variances and I would like to ask whether there are two additional ones, which were not cited. One is whether the cap on .50 FAR for residential if there would be required to be a variance for the .54 residential? Mr. Williams: No, not under a PC. Commissioner Keller: Okay. Mr. Williams: A PC would allow you to establish that FAR cap differently than a CN zone. Commissioner Keller: But under CN there would be. Mr. Williams: Under straight CN yes, it would require a variance. Commissioner Keller: Under either CN or PC my understanding is that the balconies of the BMR units are insufficient in size for the individual units, the open space for BMR units was that considered? Mr. Williams: I don’t know if that is the case or not. Under a PC that would be something that you could deal with as part of the PC without a variance. Under the CN if the open space requirements were not met then it would require a variance. Commissioner Keller: Could you tell us about this? There have been various speculations as to whether or not a traffic light would be allowed or required or whatever at the intersection of the main entrance to Alma Plaza and Alma Street. Mr. Williams: The short answer is that it would not meet necessary traffic warrants for that. Dennis Struecker is here, our traffic consulting engineer, and can answer that in more detail if you like as to why it wouldn’t meet those warrants. He has provided us with that information today. Commissioner Keller: If you want we could do that after the break. The last question is in regard to truck access routes for delivery. My understanding is the truck access route has no entrance from the south side of the property and the entrance is from the central spine. I am wondering what the exit would be for truck traffic and if truck traffic comes out of south end it would then be directed towards Oregon Expressway, which is not a truck route. I am wondering whether the inconvenience of that truck route would encourage trucks to drive on Oregon rather than going around the cloverleaf and going down to E1 Camino and going back to San Antonio. 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 Mr. Williams: I don’t know the design specifics of that. I don’t know if Beth does or Dennis does. Commissioner Keller: Maybe you can think about that and come back after the break. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt you had a question. Commissioner Burt: I don’t lrmow whether this is something that Staff or legal counsel can give us any insight on or whether it is just up to the Commission for their own interpretations. We don’t have a specific zoning for the neighborhood centers and we have a CN zone that we have recently adopted that is probably the closest to that and within the Comprehensive Plan the neighborhood centers are alluded to as being commercial neighborhood retail or commercial neighborhood. But then within the Comprehensive Plan we also have this entire section on neighborhood centers that gives a whole bunch of policies and programs that are specific to neighborhood centers and don’t seem to apply to CN as a whole. So can you give any other guidance on how we are to reconcile those different aspects, the zoning code that only has a CN zone, a Comprehensive Plan that has some association between CN and neighborhood centers, and yet has a whole separate section that is the policies and programs that address neighborhood centers more specifically? Mr. Emslie: I think, and Curtis said that maybe we haven’t done enough analysis to give you the kind of thorough guidance you may be looking for tonight but that would be one of the areas that we would take a look at. We basically look at the Comprehensive Plan and all the policies applied to neighborhood centers and do an analysis to say can you achieve these objectives through this zoning implementation. As you know the zoning code is your implementation mechanism for your Comprehensive Plan. If we felt that we were missing some of those because of gaps or omissions or difference in standards then I would say yes we would be able to tell you you should have a specific zone to implement that section of the Comprehensive Plan. I don’t think Curtis and I are ready to commit to that but what we would be able to commit to is that we would be happy to look at that and give you our recommendation in a little bit more thoughtful way. Chair Holman: Okay. Given that the Commission will take a seven-minute break. Thank you everyone for hanging in there with us as we ask all our questions. We will be back. We would like to continue the meeting. Staff, a procedural question that might help us move this along. If the Commission recommendation were to initiate a CN and continue the PC this would obviously come back to the Commission for further discussion. Mr. Emslie: Yes because that CN requires a mixed use project go through Site and Design, which involves the Commission and the ARB. Chair Holman: But it would come back to us for vetting of the PC versus CN at the initiation meeting. Page 38 1 Mr. Emslie: Yes. If you were to initiate the CN I think the tentative date is April 11 advertised 2 hearing for the CN for the public hearing and you could also have the PC at that time, having 3 been continued to that so that it could be on the agenda for discussion. 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 Chair Holman: The other option would be that if the Commission decided that we wanted to continue with a PC in any fashion it would go then to City Council. Could it then come back to the Commission for further vetting so that we could deal with some of the more fine-grained issues so that we can get beyond the larger issues tonight? Mr. Emslie: Yes it can. You can do that in the form of a recommending condition to Council and I think we initially indicated that our preference was for the Commission to consider a broader land use discussion and decision on if you were going to move forward with a PC to Council on the condition that it would come back for basically the Site and Design for the Planning Commission and the ARB to work out more of the project details. Yes, that has always been part of our recommendation so we would continue to recommend that the Council, if you were to move forward with a PC tonight, that you recommend that the Council send that back to you for analysis and approval of the Site and Design of the project. Chair Holman: Just to be further clear, that would be prior to ARB so we can deal with the land use issues more specifically. Mr. Emslie: Yes, that would be our preferred order. Chair Holman: Thank you for that clarification. Commissioners, comments? Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I would like to risk a motion. Would you prefer to have comments first? Chair Holman: I don’t know that there is a preference on this occasion. Commissioner Garber: Well, in deference to the comment period let me have some comments and then it may assume the form of a motion shortly thereafter. It has taken me awhile but I have a way of thinking about this piece of property and some of the issues that are active and bearing upon this. So let me outline an approach and a way of thinking about this. The CN zone has criteria, which helps us understand the proportion of retail to residential and is therefore very helpful. In the CN world if we were to simply do a CN or recommend a CN zone versus a PC zone we would be answering to the functional use of the property and make it align with the other similar uses that are found in the city. However, we wouldn’t get some of the benefits that make it a community center, which is in fact what this particular piece of property is specified to do within the Comprehensive Plan. There are a couple of specific issues, which I will touch on. First of all the grocery store. We cannot in the CN approach to the property designate a specific Use of the retail property. We can do that in the PC. Although I think the marketplace is going to require a grocery store to be there because there both exists the supply as well as the demand for it that we have heard from a 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 variety of voices it probably makes sense given where the community is that that become a requirement. Now the BMR is the other issue that is foremost in my mind. The requirement for the BMR units is going to exist in either of these cases is of a lesser issue to me that it is rental or sale. It is a greater issue that we have them. It is more attractive I understand from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation that the rental is preferred because there are not many instances of them in the city and it would be a good thing to have them versus not. The incentive for them to exist does not exist in the CN zone either. So the CN zone answers the question of how much retail there should be to residential, BMR is taken care of by another mechanism, the functional use is taken care of by the market and can be legislated. The remaining issue is how you turn it into a neighborhood center. I think I want to be real clear about this, I think it takes just two things and only two things. I don’t think the perfect neighborhood center exists in Palo Alto. I think the neighborhood centers that we have are successful to differing degrees. They could all be improved. The two things that I think are critical for a neighborhood center is retail and open space and that is the sense of place that some on the Council have described and others here on the Commission have recommended. It is in fact not just having those two things but the adjacency of them that allows someone in the immediate neighborhood to both participate in the retail experience and have a place to gather. That is the critical ingredient that makes the neighborhood center different than any other place in the community. That is the benefit that I think we should be looking for in this particular property. The applicant has outlined a number of different benefits that could be realized. Frankly, the only one I am interested in is the open space. Simple, clear, and it gets directly to what I think is the key issue for the community. The other things that the applicant has proposed are all good things and I am happy to have them but for me the bottom line is the retail and the open space and their adjacency. So my approach here that I am suggesting the Commission take is to recognize that the issues that have been debated can be answered by the existing rules for BMR, the marketplace for the grocery store, and the CN zone for the relationship between retail and the residential components of the project. We have to think of this as a PC in order to get the benefits. What we need to discuss is what benefits the developer can realize for us to get that open space and the adjacency to retail to make the project successful not only to the community but also to the developer and the land owner, The substance of a motion I might make would be exactly that. It would be that the project be approved as a PC, incorporating the criteria of the CN zone, and that the motion then entertain motions or friendly amendments from the Commissioners as to what benefits we want to give to the developers. I think there are a few to be discussed. One of which is how flexible we want to be. Chair Holman: Excuse me Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I may be going beyond what I should here. I will leave it at that. Page 40 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 Chair Holman: Yes, I think state your motion and then be succinct about what you might be looking for. Commissioner Garber: I wasn’t going to make a motion because we were just doing comments. Chair Holman: I thought you were saying you were making a motion. Okay. Commissioner Garber: No I was just talking about how I was going to structure it. Chair Holman: Okay. Commissioner Garber: Why don’t I leave it at that and see what other comments there are. Chair Holman: Okay. Other comments? Commissioner Tuma and then Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Tuma: Maybe to help you in framing your motion but also to air a lot of thoughts that I have on where we are and where I think we should be going, and acknowledge a few things. One is this property is in the City of Palo Alto but it belongs to Mr. McNellis. I want to thank him for his willingness to revitalize this center. It is not something he has to do. I also want to acknowledge that I am very excited about the proposal to build retail to LEED Silver standards. I think it is something we talk a lot about in this community. I think it is something that could potentially be something that Palo Alto could be very proud of. As far as the BMR housing proposal as it is I don’t know whether it meets the requirements, I don’t know whether it goes beyond the requirement because we don’t have a BMR Agreement in front of us. We don’t know what the houses would be worth. What is more important to me on that front is I really like the concept that this proposal has. It allows us to have a type of housing that is very difficult to create in Palo Alto and this is an opportunity to get that. So I think we need to acknowledge that during this process. As with Commissioner Garber I am very pleased that we are talking about dedicated park space here because I don’t think you can have a true neighborhood center without some centralized open space. I also agree with Commissioner Garber about the adjacency of that space to the retail. Let’s really make this something that is a true neighborhood center. I think it needs to be larger than it is right now in the proposed plan but that is part of my view. I think it is also important to talk about the type and scale and size of housing that is being proposed here. These are relatively large houses. I think some of the discussion has been around R-1 type housing. This isn’t R-1 type housing in some ways and in some ways it is. It is typically about the size of a house that you would put on a 6,000 square foot lot in Palo Alto. So that being said I am supportive of the type of housing in this particular project but I think we need to make sure that we are kind of covering the other end of this, the retail end of this, to support that housing. Also I would like to thank the public for their input in the process here. I don’t whether I mentioned this before or not but I used to live on that block of Emerson that dead ends at Alma 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 42 43 44 45 46 Plaza. Don’t live there anymore otherwise I wouldn’t be here having these discussions. Thank you to the public for pushing and pushing in getting something done here. I think at the same time the public needs to be willing to compromise and get something that I think we are all going to be comfortable with, that is going to be a great place, but we have to come off of these discussions about 35 or 40,000 square feet of retail. I don’t think it works. I think in malting our decision tonight we have to be guided by a few things, what is right for the city, what the Comprehensive Plan requires, what the zoning is, and what policies and direction City Council has set. I think part of our job is to help create a city that meets the needs of our residents. There has been a lot of discussion and strong emphasis on walkable, bikable city, and preservation of open space. I think a good neighborhood serving commercial center achieves some of those goals. I think we have an opportunity to reinforce - to walk the walk and do what we talk about. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as a neighborhood center but it doesn’t specify a certain number of square feet of retail that is necessary. What it does talk about is maintaining local serving retail and maintaining an environment that is pleasant, attractive and one that draws friends and neighbors to that environment. That is what the Comprehensive Plan says in my view. The CN zoning, we had the benefit of having recently vetted that, having recently updated it. I think it reflects some of the best thinking and current policy of the city. I think also we need to look at policies that the City Council has set in recent times. I think they put a renewed focus last year on retaining and developing retail and directed that we revisit the Comprehensive Plan in light of some of the housing growth that we have seen. Since the time this project was in front of City Council last time they have also initiated the rezoning of four significant propertie~ in the city to encourage retail and to slow housing growth. That was in August of last year. It is important I think that we take that into account in our deliberations. Through the ZOU process we have also recently amended several provisions specifically CN to increase the amount of retail that is required. Alma Plaza is an opportunity to revitalize an important and valued neighborhood center of our community. We have heard it is a great place for retail. We have heard it is a really bad place for retail. I believe it is really something in between. We have heard that the residents do not want really large retail presence here nor do they want a small one. The reality is I think they would be best served by something in between. One thing that we all want is to redevelop Alma Plaza. We need excellent design and adequate and viable neighborhood serving retail in order to accomplish that. The PC zone allows the City to retain control and discretion over what gets developed in this important site and gives us the ability to make some concessions in exchange for greater public benefit. The CN zoning gives the development community clear guidance, specific guidance, as to what will be acceptable for this property in many respects. There has been a lot of discussion about with a PC it is squishy, what is the guidance, what are we allowed to do, what did City Council say in their last session? I think by recommending that CN be applied here it is very clear, very specific as to what the requirements will be. So I would urge all of us to move this 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 forward as expeditiously as possible taking our recommendation, whatever the motion may be to do that, moving it to City Council as soon as possible, having them review it and get on with this project one way or another. Let’s move this thing forward. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I am in sympathy with a number of comments that have been made by my two fellow Commissioners. In particular I mentioned at the last meeting that I was pleased about the LEED Silver as Commissioner Tuma was. I think that one of the interesting things from my point of view is not only what happens for the project that is hopefully built on this site sometime relatively soon but also what happens in the future. The part that becomes residential will stay that way forever. The part that remains as retail in fact it is sort of residential in the back and a mixed use in the front is the way I see it. The mixed use in the front has a lifetime and I am concerned about what happens to it afterwards and how we deal with the project now will effect what happens in the future. So the extent to which the retail in the front is viable and remains viable or whether it fails and at some point in time gets redeveloped into 100 percent housing as what happened to the Hyatt. I am very concerned about the potential for that happening or at least the retail being whittled down to a coffee shop of 15 percent of some smaller amount. I think that there is a question about the nature of what we would like to see here. Obviously we have to have a series of compromises. Not everybody is going to get what they want and in fact nobody is probably going to get everything that they want. I do think that going to a CN zone is not sufficient because we do lose control of this particularly if the area in the back is a separate parcel or is parcelized into small pieces and then the part in the front is a separate CN zone. What happens to that in the future is something that concerns me. I think that the idea of requiring a grocery store and requiring that that stay there forever and that that not go away at some time in the future is something that we must be concerned with. In terms of Commissioner Garber’s comments about retail and open space what is interesting to me is the usable open space. I am wondering what the uses will be of this little 9,000 plus or minus square feet of park. I am wondering whether that would be used by people tossing a ball, playing ball or whether it would be used by somebody going to the grocery store, getting a sandwich, eating there, and leaving garbage on there. So I am sort of wondering what the nature of the uses of that will be. What I don’t see is that there be open space, which is integrated with the retail that has benefits of retail like for example open space for which you could put caf~ tables out. If you look at a number of the cafes in Midtown there are tables nearby or at the Charleston Center there are tables nearby where people can take their coffee out there or for restaurants there are tables often nearby where people can take food and have service there. There is no usable space like that that would basically make this like a gathering point. So I am wondering whether this little piece of park is in fact viable. Whether it will be used or whether it will become trashed by people hanging out there. Whether it will be serviced by the residents who might see it as a nuisance from people coming from the retail and using it. I am having trouble understanding the integration of this environment. Page 43 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 I will close by requesting that the questions that I asked before the break be addressed by our traffic expert if we could do that. Chair Holman: Thank you. Mr. Dennis Struecker, DMJ, Consultant, Traffic Engineer: I am here as consultant to the City on traffic. The applicant’s traffic engineer looked at three volume warrants for the main entrance and a signal is not warranted under any of those three volume warrants which prior to an operational project are really all that they can look at. Does that address your question? Commissioner Keller: It seems to me that one reason for having a traffic signal is because of the amount of traffic volume. Mr. Struecker: Correct. Commissioner Keller: Another reason that some might consider having a traffic signal is in order to allow reasonable access to the property and I am wondering whether that is a consideration. Mr. Struecker: There are 11 warrants, four or five of them are volume, there is an accident warrant, there is a school warrant, there is a delay warrant. So what you are asking I think would probably be a delay warrant which you really can’t determine until you can actually measure some delay. The level of service out there, what they are predicting for level of service is poor because there is too much traffic on Alma to allow for, I don’t want to use the word ’adequate,’ but to allow for gaps that would produce an acceptable level of service. So they are projecting level of service E I think it is for the exit for the center. Just because it is level of service E doesn’t mean that a traffic signal is warranted. Unwarranted traffic signals in my opinion are not advised. Rear end accidents occur because of traffic signals that wouldn’t otherwise occur and it opens liability to the City. Commissioner Keller: I am wondering if you can compare the nature of what the warrants would be for a traffic signal at Alma Plaza’s main entrance versus the warrants for the two traffic signals that were placed in Midtown one at Bryson Court and one where the Co-Op used to be and I think there is Walgreen’s over there. I am wondering how you would compare the ethicacy of those traffic signals. Mr. Struecker: Well, for Alma Plaza there is probably about 50 percent of the traffic, there is plenty of traffic on Alma Street for a traffic signal it is whether there is enough traffic from the side street. At Alma Plaza there is about 50 percent based on the applicant’s traffic engineer’s study. The examples you cited I do not know what the side street traffic is in comparison to that. There are a lot of unwarranted traffic signals out there I am sure, I don’t know if the ones you are talking about are warranted or not, I don’t know. I don’t have the data. Mr. Williams: I think this again gets back to this has come back to you as a Site and Design and maybe at that point with more specifics we can look at those other intersections you talked about 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 on Middlefield and maybe some others and see why some are permitted and some aren’t and come back to you with a recommendation at that point specifically about a traffic signal. I don’t think it is necessary to include that at this point, which way that goes relative to moving the PC or other recommendation forward. Commissioner Keller: The reason that that is interesting to me is it directly affects the viability of this site as a retail center. If you have a traffic light there that makes it a lot easier to enter and exit the site then it makes the site much more attractive for retail and might help better support a larger amount of retail at the site. They sort of go hand-in-hand. On the other hand people might want to avoid that because it is hard to get in and out of that site. That is where the connection is for me. I would also like to ask if the traffic engineer has studied the truck access for deliveries to this and what the routes would be. Mr. Struecker: I don’t have the City truck route map handy tight now. The site will be required to meet the City’s truck route ordinance. Commissioner Keller: We can defer this until the Site and Design but I think that making sure that we have a good arrangement for traffic to flow through this for trucks so that they don’t have to be sent all the way to Oregon Expressway would seem to me to be a good thing. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. This wouldn’t be Commissioners’ only time to speak. We can do rounds here if need be. Vice-Chair Lippert: I don’t disagree a lot with what I have heard from other Commissioners here but I do see it a little bit differently. I would like to elaborate a little bit more. The first comment I would like to make really has to do with the City Council meeting where they did the preliminary review. I was the Planning and Transportation Commission representative. I think you have all viewed the wonderful DVD that was provided by Jim Baer, which gave us the full meeting. I think the one thing that came out that was clear about that meeting, actually there were two things. Number one, that the City Council was pretty frustrated by the fact that this site had remained vacant for so long and they really wanted to see something happen on this site. I think that was pretty obvious in that heating. The second thing that was obvious was that City Council procedures are different than our procedures. They have a presentation by the applicant and Staff, they give their feedback or comments up front, and then they took the public testimony last. So their comments were prior to receiving any public heating whatsoever. So they might have changed their point of view or some of the things that they had to say after hearing the public, and the public hearing didn’t happen until after the City Council which was pretty late. So there might have very well have been members of the public that were not there. With that being said I am not in support of the current PC for a number of reasons and I will try to describe them as best as I can. I see this housing project or the housing portion of it alone as very much like a project that I mentioned at the previous hearing, the one at the Cameo Club site. 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 For those of you that don’t know the Cameo Club site it is a new street called Driscoll Place, it is located off of E1 Camino Real between Vista Avenue and Maybell Avenue. It is a series of three story row homes and the most obvious feature on each of these row homes is the garage out front. Well the proposal that we have here configuration wise is very similar. The main difference being that the ones on the Cameo Club site are all jammed together and these have some space in between them. The amount of space between these houses however is not very much. You are talking about three and a half feet to what we would consider to be the boundary of each of the condos from the wall. So what you wind up with a total of maybe about seven feet between buildings. That is far less than what we require with regard to setbacks. In fact this is just a fire separation more than anything. I alluded to the fact that if we these buildings were jammed together and more open space was created between the buildings so that by became I guess what we consider semi-detached units or row type house at least that space would be usable in some way, shape, or form. The unfortunate thing about this proposal is that these houses are all rear loaded on the front side of the house. We have two car garages and there is no evidence whatsoever from what we call a street that there is an entrance to the house. The entrance is on the side of the house and there is a canyon that goes down the spine, which we call a pedestrian thoroughfare. Again, this is minimum distances between these units so it is creating almost spaces that for the letter of the law are open spaces, and are pedestrian spaces, and are traffic spaces, but the truth of the matter is they are devoid of any humanity whatsoever, the assets that we are looking for in terms of building neighborhood and defining place. Going a little bit further with this looking at the proposed public benefit of the BMR housing. In my line of questioning because there is no BMR Agreement what is the life of that housing . element? Does it merely exist there for the life of the building, or does it go beyond that, or is it less than the life of the building? Does that public benefit or benefit to the Housing Corporation merely evaporate? If the units are included and integrated into those for sale housing units it is guaranteed that they build equity for an individual who can then sell them and move up in society. If it was in wholesale given away to the Housing Corporation as their property the Housing Corporation has the equity and therefore if the site was redeveloped they could sell off their portion and reclaim it in new affordable housing somewhere else. But in this proposal because of the lifetime, the cap in terms of the use of that, that benefit evaporates over 50 years. The last part that is alluded to in Jim Baer’s letter, which I really shouldn’t go there but, well he talks about a bonus for BMR in state law. I think what he is referring to and we have come up against this before is SB1818. In that law there are a couple of things. Number one, it allows for an increase in density for BMR units but the flip side of it is that it has to meet our development regulations. Well, that unit is located inside the 30-foot setback along Alma Street it is not within our regulations because it violates the front yard setback on that property. It can extend up in height up to the maximum of what is permitted with regard to our height allocation. In other words, it has to stay within whatever those regulations are that we have decided are the site development regulations. I am going to sort of wrap up my comments because I am out of breath and I need to get a drink here but what I would not support is approval of this PC. Where i would like to see this go is that we initiate a rezone for a CN with a mixed use overlay and that we do keep the PC open so that we can receive additional comment on that and discussion on that and this is continued to a 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 date certain which would be the April 11 hearing where the public would be able to comment on the CN as well as the PC proposals. I have some other thoughts as to how this might be improved. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: I will be interested to hear the exact wording of the motion that comes before us. I in general lend support to the comments that Commissioner Garber and Tuma have made as well as many of the other comments by fellow Commissioners. I think those sentiments and what I expect to hear in a motion are close in a thoughtful evolution from the positions that the Commission has recommended over the past year and the discussions that we have had over the past year both back last April and the suggestion on having a retail in the neighborhood of 30,000 square feet but also very strong comments about the importance of an integration of this and a true mixed use. I don’t believe that Commissioners said that horizontal mixed use was prohibited. What they talked about was an integration of those uses and that it be a true mixed use. You can achieve that in a variety of ways that can be achieved with the sort of horizontal approach that we had even talked about at our last meeting a month ago where we have an area that is essentially a vertical mixed use, a transitional area that is really an interrelationship between that zone and a residential area that is of higher density that relates to the mixed use, and then a third transitional area that more reflects the neighborhood and has more of a residential character. So I think and hope that that’s the direction of the motion and it is going to be an interesting structure to it. I would also like to say that Commissioner Keller’s comments about the open space I think are very important. The Comprehensive Plan talks about those community gathering spots and we are not talking about the same thing as a neighborhood park here. We are talking about areas that would relate to the mixed use and really be integrated with it. That is a part of why the Comprehensive Plan has such a specific reference to neighborhood centers that is separate and beyond the way it talks about other neighborhood commercial. They are anchors to the neighborhood and they are not only valuable retail sources but for those sectors of our city they are where people gather, they are centers, they are what reduce our car trips, they are what increase our pedestrian trips and a place to go. I think all parties have been frustrated by the amount of time it has taken to get to this point. A year ago we talked about that we expected the need to have significant compromise and that we were willing to accept it even as it was different from what we would prefer and what we really think that the Comprehensive Plan suggests. We won’t have something here I don’t believe that will, as Policy L-7 says, maintain the scale. It is just a stretch to claim that it will but the Comprehensive Plan does have a lot of objectives not all of which we are going to be able to fully achieve. We also under Program L-37 are not having a project that was prepared with a master plan that included local businesses and neighbors. So those things aren’t going to be able to be achieved here. So then what we are looking at is I think what we have been evolving toward through our thoughtful consideration is as close to achieving the community objectives as we can while making a recommendation that is going to be economically viable for the developer. Our obligation is not to provide the highest possible profit for a developer but it is to Page 47 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 recognize that a project needs to be economically viable and to help promote the redevelopment. ! think that the sentiments I have expressed have been ones that have been generally expressed by the Commission since last April and last month. I expect that the makers of the motion will be able to incorporate those into the motion itself. Chair Holman: Where to start. One thing I would reiterate that has been stated earlier is that the Council prescreening was not binding no matter whether it supports this project or something different. Those comments are not binding and subsequent to that there also was direction by the Council towards focus on retail retention. So that also comes into play. One matter I think I agree with some of the comments that have been made and I disagree with some that have been made for certain. I personally am interested in the open space. I am interested in the open space being comparable to what would be required by the Quimby Act. I am interested in and not only interested but I think a requirement of this project should be vertical mixed use and there are a few reasons for that. One is at the last Commission meeting there was a fair amount of discussion about this project as proposed is not an integrated project. One way to make it more integrated is to have vertical mixed use and the other thing that gets integrated in that design is the BMR units. If there is vertical mixed use that incorporates other housing units then automatically the BMR units get incorporated and that is very important. Commissioner Lippert commented about the BMR units being where they are, and on Alma, and being above the grocery, and I think that is not what the BMR Program talks about in terms of equitable size and location. A grocery store is a necessity at this site. I don’t think we can afford to go with a CN zone. I think it is a necessity for a number of reasons. It is a necessity because it will bring some sales tax revenue to the City but it is really a necessity because as Comprehensive Plan Goal L-4 talks about neighborhood centers and they are often anchored by a grocery. That is not an accident. People go to a grocery store and they do other shopping while they are at the grocery store but everybody has to go grocery shopping. So you have a grocery store as an anchor that gets people to support the other retail and it becomes a gathering place. Whole Foods on Homer Avenue has no open space around it, the parking lot basically has no open space, and that Whole Foods Market is a public gathering place. It is a market. It has even very limited retail around it but other restaurants that also support it. I would even consider having some vertical mixed use that incorporated some office to make this a truly mixed use project. I think the pedestrian and bicycle access from Ramona and Emerson are very important. The pedestrian access that is indicated on the current plan it is difficult for me to tell if that also makes it clear passage for bicycles so that we don’t have pedestrians and bicycles competing with one another. That is absolutely essential to this. It is essential in the same way that the grocery is absolutely critical here it is because you don’t want people getting in their car to go someplace else to shop for groceries. You want to make it as accessible as possible and you want it to be as neighborhood a center as you possibly can. A grocery store is for me and looking at the Comprehensive Plan is almost what critically determines that. The amount of ground floor retail. We were provided the comparison to other neighborhood centers. Midtown, just looking at the grocery store and the small retail is 26,350 and I think that 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 small retail is just the building that is adjacent to the parldng lot. Charleston Center is almost 42,000. Edgewood, which is almost exactly the same size as this property, is 50,500. What is currently at Alma Plaza is 55,500. I think requiring certainly a minimum of 30,000 square feet which is essentially consistent with the CN zoning, CN zoning would be only slightly less than that, I think a minimum of 30,000 square feet is consistent with both CN and more recent Council direction about retaining retail. I think it might even be on the low side if this was a well integrated project. I agree with Commissioner Keller that the signalization at the entrance to Alma is not as simple as does the amount of traffic merit it. I think it is a safety issue and I understand from Staff that there is a safety issue about rear end collisions too but there is also a safety issue about people getting in and out of the shopping center and about helping it become a successful retail environment. For public benefits the open space would be one for certain. Extra BMR units would be a public benefit. The difficulty with this is that we don’t know if we have even enough BMR because we don’t benefit from that analysis. I think I will stop there. Other Commissioners, comments? Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: One concern that I do have is that if we deny the PC the way it is right now and it moves forward to the City Council and that is our recommendation that the Council without seeing another proposal in place, or something else in p!ace that the applicant can accept, will basically be accepted by City Council. That is a concern I have. I think I stated this before that it is pretty important that something be done here expeditiously and I think we all feel that way. So I believe that by initiating the rezoning for CN and also keeping the PC open there we can discuss many of the issues that we have brought here and actually come up with a solid alternative proposal that will not impede at least the City Council being able to make the decision at their hearing, impede the applicant, and get the applicant what he would find acceptable, be able to come up with zoning that the public will be able to embrace and get around, and most important for us to incorporate our feedback in terms of being able to come to agreement, unanimous agreement hopefully, on the issues and concerns that we have. So in light of there isn’t a motion yet but I would encourage that the rezoning be initiated and that we continue this to the April 11 date. Mr. Larldn: IfI can just interject in anticipation, I don’t know if this what the Commission is going to recommend, procedurally the way you would do that is finish with the PC application and then make your motion on the CN initiation. So you would either continue or make a dispositive motion on the PC application and then you would make your motion to initiate the rezoning. Chair Holman: Procedural question. If you are saying- you don’t mean literally continue the PC it would be a newly noticed meeting not a continuation, literally. Page 49 1 Mr. Larkin: I think what Commissioner Lippert is suggesting is that the PC and the rezoning 2 recommendations be done at the same meeting and in order to do that you would have to 3 continue this item that you are discussing now which is a PC application. There would be 4 another new item, which would be a public hearing on the rezoning. The public hearing on the 5 PC application is closed. You could reopen it but as of now it is closed. So all you would be 6 doing is continuing it for the actual vote on the same date that you hold the public hearing on the 7 rezone. 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 Chair Holman: The clarification I was looking for I think you answered it is just that it would be a new meeting so it would be a new public notification not just a continuation of this meeting because it contained new. Mr. Larkin: It would be both. Chair Holman: Okay, that is what I was looking for. Thank you. Samir, you had a comment? Commissioner Tuma: I had a question. By initiating the rezoning and essentially holding open the PC, this is maybe a question for one of my fellow Commissioners or Commissioner Lippert, between now and the 11th of April other than providing the public an opportunity to discuss CN what else would you hope to happen in that interim time period or is that all? Vice-Chair Lippert: No, I have some other thoughts but I don’t think it is appropriate to bring those up unless we continued the PC and initiated the CN rezone. Chair Holman: Meaning that you are concerned it would be discussion about the CN specifically? Vice-Chair Lippert: It would be. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I think one of the things that would be interesting is the extent to which we without discussing the issue of a CN zone the problem is just like last time we had questions that we wanted to be addressed at this meeting and I am wondering if there are questions that we can ask that we would like to be addressed at the next meeting if what Vice-Chair Lippert proposes is what we adopt. Mr. Larkin: If you have tree clarifying questions those can be asked, they can be asked tonight, they can be asked offline. If you have questions that more relate to the relative merits of CN zoning those probably should wait and be addressed at the public hearing. Commissioner Keller: You can tell me, I am going to venture a question and you can tell me whether this is an appropriate question. Sorry that I have you in order to find out. Vice-Chair Lippert: He is not going to answer the question, though. 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 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Keller: Yes, I understand you are not going to answer the question. You are going to tell me whether this is the kind of question we can ask. To what extent can we create a CN zoning with a grocery store combining district? Mr. Larkin: I can answer that question because we don’t have a grocery store combining district so that would require adoption of a whole new ordinance. Chair Holman: Okay, I have a couple of comments to plug in here. I guess as I have heard some of the comments by Commissioners I have a concern that it is a bali~ncing act and that is for sure about wanting to get Alma Plaza redeveloped with also wanting to get the right things on the site. I guess a bit of caution that I would perhaps put out there is that I would urge the Commission to hold true to the duties of the Commission to uphold Comprehensive Plan policies and subsequent policies that the Council has adopted like reducing greenhouse gases, thus meaning pedestrian and bicycle access and oriented, and retaining retail. The reason I bring this up is because I would hate to see the integrity of our recommendation be compromised because we are concerned about what the Council might or might not accept. The reason that is a concern, and I am not recommending I don’t have it in my notes to do something terribly extreme, at the same time if we don’t recommend what we think is really the best use here and we are the recommending body to the Council, and the Council approves a project that we really don’t think is the best thing that we can get here we are complicit in a bad recommendation for the community. So as I have heard Commissioners speak I am somewhat concerned that that might be a direction that the Commission is going. It is true that if the applicant does agree with let’s say for instance a PC that gets recommended and let’s say for purposes of discussion approved by Council then he has some options. He can either say that is okay, or he can sit on the property and it will remain under utilized as it is now, he can also sell it to someone else to redevelop it. The City also has another course of action that it could take which I raised earlier which is to eliminate this fuzziness that we seem to be struggling with about the PC. We could initiate discussions about a specific zoning instead of zoning recommendations and standards for neighborhood commercial centers and that would set the standard for any future development. So I think we have other options but I hope what comes out of this Commission recommendation is what we feel like is the best recommendation that we can come up with and not just anticipating what the Council might or might not do. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: So a question for the Chair, Commissioners and/or Staff. What I am trying to get straight in my mind here in terms of immediate next steps is does the motion that has to be made next need to include both the recommended process step in addition to the recommendations to the site or are those separateable? Mr. Larkin: They can be separated. What does come next is some action either approval, denial, approval with conditions, or continuance of the PC. In terms of how you want to forward that to Council you can do that in separate motions. 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 Chair Holman: It might be helpful ifI might step in here. It might be helpful if you might give us some guidance on approval with conditions versus a denial. Like what would Staff consider an approval with conditions versus a denial of this but recommendation for another PC? Mr. Emslie: Well, it may be a distinction without a difference because as the applicant has indicated conditions that go beyond what he is proposing he would consider a denial and that would be forwarded to the Council as a denial as the attorney has already said. Chair Holman: So what is on the table is if we don’t agree with what is on the table then. Mr. Emslie: Well, you could put the conditions on in terms of indicating to Council what you would accept on this side. It would go basically to the Council directly because as the attorney indicated earlier the acceptance of that would essentially be in the applicant’s hands and if he did not accept it he would treat it as a denial. He recently reconfirmed that with me at the break. Chair Holman: Okay. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I am not very sympathetic with the idea ofrezoning to a CN because I think it loses a lot of the kind of control that we would want to have. Mr. Larkin: I just want to interrupt you because the CN issue isn’t on the table so the only issue with regard to CN is whether to initiate and a full discussion could be had at the next meeting. What is on the table now is purely PC. Commissioner Keller: I am indicating my lack of desire with initiating a CN. Mr. Larkin: But right now the item on the agenda is rezoning to a PC it is not rezoning to a CN. So get through that issue first and then you can talk about the CN. Commissioner Keller: Fine. I think I am interested in this project remaining as a PC. I am interested in this parcel remaining a PC because it allows us to have more control over the project. The problem is that in the past the responses were no, you can’t do what you are asking for. With the discussions in previous instances before I was on the Commission there wasn’t a recommendation for what we do want. So I think that some more definitive statement of what we do want is important. That gives clarity to the process for the future. I think that we didn’t actually do that - my understanding of what happened in the Study Session was not quite there. So let me tell you about a couple of things that I would like to see, first of all a minimum of the CN standards preferably 30,000 square feet or more of retail. Secondly, require a grocery store. Thirdly, that there be Site and Design Review of the project at a subsequent stage of this. That the City review and approve any CC&Rs. That there be a single parcel with no parcelization with the exception of the parcels that are adjacent to Bryant Street and the R-1 to the south. That the Quimby Act applies. That in consideration of Policy B-27 we allow a less than 30-foot setback in terms of a 12-foot sidewalk and that the space be reallocated to commercial open space there. Page 52 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 Chair Holman: Is this a motion, Commissioner Keller? Commissioner Keller: No, I am just saying what I would like to see I am not making a motion. That one of the public benefits be affordable rental rates for retail and that all housing be within the cap of a .50 FAR. That is what I would like to see. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber and then Commissioner Lippert. I was told you have a comment, was I in error? Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: My concern is that if a PC doesn’t appear in a form that is agreeable to the applicant, in other words too many conditions are placed upon it, it basically is a denial as the City Attorney has commented before. By keeping the public hearing open and having a discussion of PC and by initiating the rezoning without discussing the rezoning what it does is allow for a discussion of what those assets might be that might be acceptable to the applicant as well as us trying to get our input. We are not going to get it all. You are not going to get 30,000 square feet of retail and perhaps enough housing that is going to make the applicant happy here. I think that there is a compromise that can be reached but that discussion needs to happen in a forum that is viable and it can’t happen tonight. I have a question for the City Attorney. By initiating the rezoning to the CN as the Staff recommendation says is not in fact saying that we are recommending it tonight. All that we are doing is saying we would like to schedule this discussion to happen. Mr. Larkin: That is correct. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Well, with the comments that Director Emslie has just provided us that the intention of the applicant is that any modifications to the proposal, ifI understood him correctly, would be construed by the applicant to be a denial and that he would want to go directly to the Council either way. Steve, is that a correct characterization? Mr. Emslie: You can check with him but he told me that at the break but if you want to confirm that with him directly. Commissioner Burt: No, I will take your characterization of it. I don’t see the point of going forward with additional Commission discussion. I think that we can look at this as approval with conditions or denial based upon not the applicant’s characterization but how we would view any project with the level of changes that we would be proposing. If we think that it is within the scope of conditions that we might put on a PC application that we would otherwise recommend for approval then we should recommend approval with these conditions. If we think it is a fundamental denial of the project then we should call it that but I think we should move it forward. The progress that we have made since our last heating or through that heating and this one is that we have explored this concept of how to use CN as a reference point. It doesn’t stipulate what a Page 53 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 PC would be in this neighborhood center but it has given us some guidance that at first we had to struggle with and that is part of what the Planning Commission does that the Council frankly in a two hour period doesn’t have the opportunity to explore in that depth and we hope that they will take our thoughtful considerations and evaluate them. So I would support that we move forward with our recommendation to Council where we are back to something similar to what Director Emslie had recommended at the prior heating, which is that it not be sent to ARB and that it go onto Council with the policy. Chair Holman: Is this a motion, Commissioner Burt? Commissioner Burt: No it is not. That it go onto Council with the particular land use and broad recommendations that we would be supporting. So I am in favor of having a motion that will take it to Council. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma, did you have comments? Commissioner Tuma: No, but I am prepared to make a motion if you are prepared to entertain it. Commissioner Keller: Can I ask a question first? Chair Holman: Would you allow Commissioner Keller to ask a question first? Commissioner Tuma: Absolutely. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I have a question of the Attorney, Don. If under the hypothetical situation that we initiated a rezoning to CN and did not make a dispositive motion with respect to the PC could we have a combined discussion of the potential PC versus CN at a subsequent meeting or would it have to be two different agenda items? Mr. Larkin: It would be two different agenda items. The distinction is at least in that case both of those items would have been noticed so it would be much more understandable to have the compare and contrast discussion. So I think that that would be adequate notice that that sort of discussion might take place. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Sorry, Commissioner Lippert has a question. Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a question for Staff. If this item were continued and we did initiate the rezoning it wouldn’t delay this getting to City Council it would still arrive at the dais and be agendized for the City Council to render their decision at the heating it was meant to be. Mr. Emslie: Yes, there is sufficient to notice both the rezoning and the Council deliberations on the rezoning and the PC. The consensus is that we can do the April 11th and have notice. What we would do is do a notice for both the Planning Commission and City Council hearings in the same ad. That would enable us to do that and meet our minimum times. Page 54 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 Vice-Chair Lippert: I have just one comment. Chair Holman: For clarification the Commission date would April 11 and the Council date would be? Mr. Emslie: April 16. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: Just one other comment is that whether we voted to affirm or deny the PC application at that date or have the hearing on the CN district rezoning at least the City Council has the benefit of that discussion in reaching their decision regardless of what our recommendation is. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, question? Commissioner Keller: Yes. In direct follow up to what Vice-Chair Lippert said is there any chance that the verbatim minutes of a Planning Commission meeting on the 11 th could be made available so that it would be part of the Staff Report and packet that would go to the City Council for review on the 16th.9 Mr. Emslie: Secretary Betten indicated that yes, the verbatim minutes would be available for the City Council packet. Commissioner Keller: So when does it need to go to the City Council packet? Chair Holman: IfZariah says she can get it done I think we just trust that. Mr. Emslie: She has never been wrong on this. Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. Chair Holman: She is as trustworthy with that as she is with cookies. Commissioner Tuma. MOTION Commissioner Tuma: Okay. I would like to make a motion with respect to properties located at 3401, 3415, and 3445 Alma otherwise known as Alma Plaza that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to City Council that they adopt the PC zoning, that we incorporate the CN standards by reference and apply those to this property, incorporate the D Overlay by reference which would give Site and Design Review required by Planning and Transportation Commission as well as ARB review, that they require a grocery store of at least 15,000 square feet, they include a park that would meet the minimum requirements of the Quimby Act, and additionally that that park be adjacent to the retail, and that we also add the Page 55 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 requirement that in the future the site as a whole retain at least the 15 percent retail that would be required under CN. That’s it. Chair Holman: Do we have a second? SECOND Commissioner Garber: You do. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber seconds the motion. Commissioner Tuma, would you care to speak to your motion? Commissioner Tuma: Just briefly, a couple of additional points. One is that one of the reasons that I want to see this go to CN standards had to do with retail, obviously based on comments I have made before. I think that given the housing that is going to be added to this site and given policy that has been stated by Council and otherwise within the zoning work that we have done I think it is important to put in not only a grocery store but other retail that will generate tax revenue. I think that that’s extremely important for what we are trying to accomplish here. Beyond that I don’t want to reiterate all the comments that I previously made but I think they are still applicable and I think this is the right thing to do. Chair Holman: As a clarifying question of your motion you said the site as a whole retain at least the 15 percent required under CN you did not specify ground floor. I presume since that is what CN requires that you are indicating ground floor. Commissioner Tuma: Thank you for that clarification, yes I was. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, would you care to speak to your second? Commissioner Garber: A few comments. I think what is important for the Commission to recognize in this motion is two parts just functionally. One that this approval with conditions basically outlines very broad land use recommendations and that when it returns to the Commission as well as ARB, I think most perhaps not all but most of the issues that have also been discussed and raised as issues by some of the other Commissioners can be worked through at that time. I will leave it at that for the moment. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Just a clarification first. I am assuming that what you mean is that the 15 percent retail, and I think there is an exact number that is somewhere 27,531 or something like that, that that amount of retail be retained in perpetuity even upon subsequent redevelopment this site. Is that correct? Commissioner Tuma: Absolutely, that is the intent of the motion. Page 56 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 Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I am concerned that - first of all I won’t be supporting the motion. I think that in this case first of all in looldng at the configuration of the housing I think it is flawed. I think that it is not going to create a sense of place, it is not going to create a sense of warmth, and I don’t think it is going to create a community or the village that we are looking for here. The retail will probably do pretty well and the units will probably sell but I don’t thin it is going to create a humane place to live. But we will see. What does concern me is that the conditions that have been placed upon your motion here also is the applicant will read it as a denial of his proposal and as such will seek the Council to overturn the recommendation here. So I won’t be supporting the motion. Chair Holman: My understanding is that pretty much anything we condition the project on is going to be determined by the applicant as a denial so I don’t know that that is a driving factor from how i am understanding it. Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: First can I ask a clarifying question of the maker? Was there any aspect in the motion that addressed this integration, if so, could you repeat that and how the housing in the site would be better integrated and create more of a sense of place? Commissioner Tuma: It certainly was the intent of the motion. If I didn’t specify that then I would entertain a friendly amendment that specifies that. Commissioner Burt: Let me give it some thought unless Commissioner Garber has language he would like to suggest. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: As the seconder can I make a friendly amendment? Chair Holman: Yes. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Perhaps a friendly amendment could be for Staff to meet with the applicant to work out with the applicant the public and property owner benefits, again, with the broadly stated outlines for the open space which I believe is the key part of the integration frankly that you are concerned with and how that is utilized on the site. So the friendly amendment would be for Staffto meet to work through those issues and find an acceptable balance between the benefits for both parties. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Before that is attempted to be adopted or not ifI might speak to it. Given that we have been indication that the applicant is not inclined to make any significant modifications and wants to go to Council and get a determination from Council on either the Commission’s recommendation and the Staff’s or what they are proposing. I am not sure that Page 57 .i 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 that is really a viable option. In many cases or most cases that is how we would do it and trust Staff to attempt to work that out. In this case I am just not at all sure that that’s the way to go. I would recommend that we include language that states our desires on the land use. In this case it would be aside from the integration of the open space with the mixed use area I guess my amendment would be that without attempting at this time to specify it but just to lay the guidelines out that there be an increased integration and variety to the housing types so that they be less monolithic or uniform and that they have a greater relationship with the mixed use area in that transitional zone in between the mixed use and the pure residential. If that amendment is acceptable to the maker and seconder I would like to propose it as such. Chair Holman: So that is a proposed amendment. Does the maker accept that friendly amendment? Commissioner Tuma: Can I ask a question about that? Chair Holman: Certainly. Commissioner Tuma: The only portion of that I need some clarification on is the variety of types of housing. I think the integration and the transition but can you expand a little bit on what you are talking about specifically if possible about the types of housing? Commissioner Burt: First I will say that at this stage I would not want to get specific about what those are and that my expectation is that either the Council would endorse that concept and it would come back and go through perhaps really more of an ARB review on that or they would reject it. What I have in mind is that we don’t go directly from the mixed use to these homes that are all large detached single-family homes on 1,850 square foot lots facing one another and not relating to the mixed use area. So that is the conceptual part that there be an area that transitions between that and allowing some of that but a transitional zone as Commissioner Garber had spoken about at our last meeting. Commissioner Tuma: Okay, the proposed friendly amendment would be acceptable to the maker. Chair Holman: And to the seconder? Commissioner Garber: (Nodded his disapproval.) Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt maybe it would be helpful if you could make your friendly amendment more concise. That might be helpful in forwarding that. Commissioner Burt: I will take another stab. That the housing types create a more fluid transition between the mixed use and the pure residential area and that there be greater variety to the housing types in particular in that transitional zone. Chair Holman: Okay, and Commissioner Tuma that is still acceptable to you? Page 58 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 .22 23 24 25 26 27 28:: : 29 30 31 32 3 3 35 36 37 38 39 40 42 .44 45 46 Commissioner Tuma: Yes. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: It is the concept. The discussion about integration in my mind has to do with the integration of three zones, retail, open, and housing as opposed to retail, open, and then further segregating the housing piece. I am very sensitive to the topic that you are trying to get to and sympathetic to it. My hesitancy here is that it is just over the edge of the gradation of detail - it is too detailed. The focus, and maybe I am wrong in that it cannot be something that is, because we are not approving a map here this evening, we are just trying to forward some of the broad concepts of how this property should be used and that is why I am focusing on these or why I did focus in the last meeting on those three zones as opposed to trying to introduce the gradation of the housing as a topic within this particular conversation here. So I think regretfully I will not second the friendly motion. Chair Holman: Of course, Commissioner Burt, you can make it as a separate amendment. AMENDMENT Commissioner Burt: All right, then I would like to make it as a separate amendment, the same language I just proposed. I had the acceptance of the maker and I will see if I have acceptance of a seconder. SECOND Chair Holman: I will second. Do you care to speak any more to your motion? Commissioner Burt: No, thank you. Chair Holman: I will only speak to it in regards to supporting what you were saying about not needing to get into the fine grain detail of how it needs to be more integrated. I think Commissioner Lippert had some comments that also add value to that discussion. I commented earlier about some vertical mixed use to better integrate it too but I think those comments also are supported by Comprehensive Plan policies to indicate creating a variety of housing types. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I am supportive of the motion I just suggest that you delete the word ’more’ from it. You were saying ’more fluid’ and I think you should just say ’fluid’ that makes more sense. I think that one of the benefits of trying to give a judgment of what this thing looks like is that the earlier and the more complete guidance we give to the developer in terms of what we get back the fewer iterations we have to go through. It reminds me of something my boss said many years ago in college. He said why is there never enough time to do it right and always enough time to do it over? What I realize is in fact he was wrong. There is almost never enough time to do it over usually things happen once and then they can go on from there. Therefore the more feedback that we can give to the developer earlier Page 59 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 on the more likely that what comes back to us is something we will feel comfortable with. If you are making lots of design changes at Site and Design Review you have a problem. Commissioner Burt: So I would welcome that deletion of the word ’more.’ Chair Holman: As would I. Any other comments on this amendment? Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I just want to go back for a second to Commissioner Garber and his not accepting the motion, which I support in this case. There are two conflicting elements here. One is dividing it up into zones and asking for something that has integration. What really has to happen on the site here is that there needs to be centers of activity. By taking the zones and separating them out what you have done is disjointed all the activity rather than integrating the activity. A simple example is that you have this retail element and just simply by substituting or flipping parcel A which is the park and placing that in the center creates a center in which the retail, the residential element can wrap around it and you begin to establish a boulevard or a commons by which the community can gather. So in some ways what I see is it is almost like an oxy-moron in some ways. It just doesn’t work. The second thing that I wanted to mention is that also by shifting that parcel down what it begins to allow for is maybe a little more underground parking under the plaza, under the parcel A. What does that do? It opens up more above ground space for park. Chair Holman: Let me just step in here for a second. The reason I am stepping in meaning no disrespect to you is just we have a motion on the floor for an amendment. So I wanted to know if you were speaking to that by trying to add an amendment to the amendment or what your purpose in your comments was? Vice-Chair Lippert: My comments were clarifying my position with regard to Commissioner Garber’s denial to the motion. Chair Holman: So in other words you were stating that you would not be supporting the motion. Vice-Chair Lippert: I won’t be supporting the motion. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: From Commissioner Lippert’s previous comments I suspect that this part of the motion is not the primary objection but it is other aspects if that is correct. I pass on clarifying but I think I would like to comment a little bit on what I am envisioning here. If you look at even the current proposal if we took the parcels that are facing the mixed use area and reoriented them toward the mixed use and instead of single family homes they became duplex town homes that, without getting into or I am not specifically suggesting that as the proposal to be incorporated, but that is the concept that would alter this. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Page 60 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 Garber: In your discussion Commissioner Lippert there isn’t a single thing that I would disagree with but I also know that you weren’t talking about housing types. I would willingly trade, if I had the option, the opportunity for more housing types in order to get the park such that it was recognized as that transition area zone and adjacent to the retail which it is not now. Chair Holman: I believe Commissioner Tuma’s motion said that the park should meet the minimum Quimby Act requirements and that the park be adjacent to the grocery store. Commissioner Tuma: Absolutely. I am certain that I said those words and the intent was to bring that land in and integrate it kind of behind the retail as opposed to now where it is sort of what you drive into. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Hence, my emphasis not on the specific housing types but on the introduction of the discussion of the three zones retail, open, housing as opposed to retail, housing, and then subdivisions of housing beyond that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: So I think the only difference that we have is in that my concept is that it is retail or mixed use I should say, open, housing that integrates with the open and the mixed use, and residential. Chair Holman: I am thinldng that and I don’t know how specific Council is going to get, but I am thinking that if we leave the language, and I would like some Staff guidance on this, if we leave the language general enough and we request that this come directly back to us from Council should they agree to our recommendation that we would have opportunity to comment more specifically about site layout that being the Site and Design Review. Mr. Larkin: That is what would happen. I think there is a key component missing and I want to make sure that the Commission understands that a PC zone can’t be imposed on an unwilling property owner. So it does require both Council approval and applicant approval. Chair Holman: I think we got that. Mr. Larkin: But it would come back assuming that that was something the Council and the applicant were able to come agreement on. Mr. Williams: The first step in Site and Design Review is the Commission. So you would see that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Page 61 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 Keller: Suppose the applicant doesn’t accept what we are proposing tonight then what happens under either scenario? Mr. Larkin: Either Council approves the project as proposed, they deny their project as proposed, or they reach some agreement with the applicant and then it comes back. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. I hope we can come to some agreements here sometime soon. Vice-Chair Lippert: I won’t belabor this. What I see here I am not going to support. I think that the discussion that we have had here is really very good but it is for the applicant to take this feedback and to have incorporated it into the proposal. I don’t think that he is going to embrace what we have proposed here. I think it will make a much better development, it will make a much better project but in some ways .... Mr. Larkin: Before you get to the substitute motion there is an amendment on the table that needs to get voted on. Vice-Chair Lippert: But I agree with what Pat had to say and both Commissioner Garber. I just don’t think it is going to be acceptable to the applicant. AMENDMENT PASSED (4-2-1-0 Commissioners Tuma, Keller, Burt, and Holman voting for, Commissioners Garber and Lippert voting no, and Commissioner Sandas absent) Chair Holman: So if there are any other comments to the amendment that is on the floor. The amendment, Commissioner Burt, if you can make sure that I am restating this correctly that housing types be required that would create a fluid transition to the mixed use and provide a greater variety of housing types. No other comments we will vote on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay) That motion passes on a four-two vote with Commissioners Tuma, Keller, Burt, and Holman voting aye, Commissioners Garber and Lippert voting nay. Are there any other amendments to the motion? I would point out that there is one thing that hasn’t been addressed as a part of the motion, which are the public benefits. That is not specifically addressed in the motion so that is one thing I might suggest we comment on or add to the motion if there are any amendments to that. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Firstly also the motion doesn’t say anything specific about the 30-foot setback and I think that should be clarified. Secondly, I think that the motion does something useful with respect to an appropriate improvements based on the baseline of CN and I think that is a good thing. I would like to make a consideration of the ethicacy of approval with conditions versus rejection. What is interesting to me is that there is an operative difference even if the developer, the applicant, decides to reject what we propose in this motion. That is that we are giving clear Page 62 1 guidance of what we would like to see. That has a certain benefit of saying this what we want to 2 see. If the developer doesn’t wish to do that at least we have given a clear suggestion of what we 3 want to see. If the developer decides to sell it to somebody else because the developer doesn’t 4 feel this is the kind of property they want to develop in this manner then a new applicant who is a 5 new owner of the property would be on notice that this is what the Planning Commission wants. 6 So by being definitive of what it is we would approve even if the developer doesn’t want to play 7 ball with respect to that there is a great value in being definitive. Similarly if we reject it with 8 these same conditions. I feel more comfortable saying this is what we would approve than to say 9 that I would want to reject it and want this. 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 Chair Holman: So what you are suggesting is that this be a denial with conditions no matter what we recommend as terms of changes. Commissioner Keller: What I am saying is that effectively that if the applicant chooses not to do this we have been specific in terms of what we would like to approve. Chair Holman: Understood. Those are two different things though I believe. So City Attorney there is no difference between approving with conditions or denying the project because it is going to be interpreted the same way, is that correct? Mr. Larkin: That is correct because you can’t impose a PC on an unwilling property owner. Chair Holman: And then your other point that if we state what we want here then it gives clear guidance to this developer or potentially any subsequent developer what is expected at this site. Agreed but they are two different issues. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: The applicant has not been presented with a decision of the Commission yet or the recommendation that he will have to consider once it is made. He has informed us what was he will do if this happens, however, I would remind you that depending on what the public benefits are the applicant will have opportunity for great incentive to continue with the project despite our recommendations. The up side for him is not small. He has hung on for a very long time. He has certainly demonstrated his stubbornness. I suspect that the recommendation of the Commission is not going to slow him down to getting to a direction, a decision that will be given to him by the Council. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: I in essence concur with Commissioner Garber I think. We have before us the option of giving our best recommendations to Council. It would be our choice that the applicant would take our recommendations and integrate them and modify his proposal before it went to Council. The indication is that that is not going to occur. That is fine. That is his prerogative and our duty is to make those recommendations to Council as best we can offer our judgment and interpretation of the guidelines. Then if the Council gives the applicant clarity on their expectations whether the Council agrees with us or ends up not agreeing with us the applicant will then know where they stand on moving forward with this project. I think this proposal helps further that process. I think it does it in a clear and expeditious fashion and I Page 63 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 think we make our best recommendations and move it to Council. The more that the Commission speaks with one voice the more likely that our influence will be strong. Chair Holman: Commissioners, I think our comments have all been heard. If we can try to bring a motion to a conclusion and any amendments to it I would appreciate that. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I would like to make a friendly amendment to the motion on the floor with respect to the public benefit for the PC. I suggest two things. One is that the retail be viable. Viable retail at this location I think is a public benefit and that means that rents be appropriate to make this be a successful location. The second thing is the green if you will. LEED Silver is a public benefit. I think that the showcasing that would exist from having a shopping center be built to that standard is from my perspective a good benefit. Thank you. Chair Holman: Could you clarify what you mean by retail be viable as a public benefit? Chair Holman: Well, it seems to me that there are a number of things that a developer can do to make the retail succeed and a developer can do to make the retail not succeed. So in terms of rents for example that are charged are one of the best ways to make sure that the retail is something that is affordable to the kinds of local serving businesses and the kinds of... Chair Holman: Then could I suggest that if that is what you want to consider as a public benefit that you make as a part of your friendly amendment some comment or some aspect relevant to the rents for the retail? Commissioner Keller: Well, I am not going to specify a particular number for the rents but I would suggest that the rents be set at such a rate that grocery stores and the other kinds of neighborhood serving retail establishments could exist at this location and be profitable. Chair Holman: Does the maker of the motion accept the friendly amendment? Commissioner Tuma: With respect to the LEED Silver component, absolutely, no question. I do have some concern about putting a requirement on the development that in some way tries to circumvent the market forces for what this would bear. I am a believer in a free-market economy and I believe that the market here will dictate what the appropriate rents would be and people are not going to sign up for those rents unless they think they can make a go of it. I am not rejecting it outright but that is what I am struggling with. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: If I understood Commissioner Tuma’s motion with the requirement that the retail be retained that basically in a way addresses Commissioner Keller’s concern that if it can’t be flipped then market forces will necessitate that it be viable, that it be rented at rates that are market rate. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Page 64 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 Keller: Well, I have seen lots of market forces not work very well. Alma Plaza has had a market force for the last so many years in which people who were willing tenants of that place were essentially forced out. So that is an example of market failure. I happen to drive electric cars and I can tell you that people have wanted to buy them and an interesting thing is the California Air Resources Board told the carmakers you have to make enough electric cars in order to satisfy demand. So the car manufacturers were in the unusual position of suppressing demand so they didn’t have to make the electric cars. So a lot can be done in terms of market manipulation so that if a developer wishes to come back to us and say I am sorry I tried retail there it doesn’t work, if a developer can keep Alma Plaza mostly vacant for ten years then I think that that is actually an interesting condition. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Perhaps Commissioner Keller might entertain a slightly different way of entertaining a friendly amendment regarding the public benefit and the land owner/developer benefit. Just for procedure sake I take it then that this particular friendly amendment would die for lack of a second? Chair Holman: It is not for lack of a second it is that Commissioner Tuma has not accepted it as a friendly amendment. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Holman: And if that is continuing to be the case then it does die unless you are suggesting that Commissioner Keller amend his amendment to your satisfaction but I think we should just start over since you haven’t accepted the friendly amendment. Commissioner Tuma: Okay, then the question is can I accept the LEED Silver portion? Chair Holman: If Cormnissioner Keller would amend his amendment. Commissioner Keller: Let me first hear from Commissioner Garber what he has to say. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, Commissioner Garber: I am suggesting that the maker not second it and let me start over and if that doesn’t surface then Commissioner Keller can restate his amendment. Commissioner Tuma: I will not accept the friendly amendment as proposed by Commissioner Keller. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Page 65 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 1 Commissioner Garber: Okay, so I have a friendly amendment and that would be to have Staff 2 negotiate with the applicant to define the public and in this case private benefits with the 3 following incentives. That the retail and housing percentage be negotiated to find the right 4 balance utilizing the CN percentages as the benchmark. 2) that they identify the other public 5 benefits that are key to the City’s acceptance which are: the creation of the open space being 6 adjacent to retail and becoming the integrative factor between the other uses of the property. The 7 places that I would see then for the private benefits are obviously the things that private applicant 8 has been interested in doing which is slightly reducing the retail and slightly increasing the housing over and under what the CN zone is, what those exact percentages are should be negotiated. Chair Holman: Perhaps Staff would like to comment on this but I think it would be up to the Commission to recommend what we would see as public benefits as opposed to sending it back to Staff to negotiate such matters. Mr. Williams: We agree. That is the Commission’s role here is to identify what those public benefits are. Commissioner Garber: So the things that I think would be on the table and I don’t have the list here in front of me but they include .... Chair Holman: So is your intention now to make a friendly amendment to include the public benefits as a part of Commissioner Tuma’s motion? Commissioner Garber: That are on the table, yes, but they are to be used in trade for the things that are important to the community specifically the use of the open space as previously stated, as the primary motion has outlined. So to the list of things that I think are viable public benefits - I am sorry, you are interested in just the public benefits that should be on the table. So they include the LEED, they include additional BMR, they include BMR as rental, they include the community spaces that have been identified and help me out with a list of the other ones that here. Mr. Larkin: More importantly I think what the Commission’s role in this is just to identify are the public benefits that have been proposed adequate to justify the PC ordinance and if not are there additional benefits that should be added to justify the PC ordinance. That might help you frame that. Commissioner Garber: Thank you, that is very good. So I would say that the ones that have been proposed do support the PC amendment. Chair Holman: If I could get clarification. The ones that have been proposed are you referring to proposed by the applicant or proposed as a part of the motion? Commissioner Garber: Well, I want to separate the two. Chair Holman: Because the open space is part of the motion. Page 66 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 Garber: Right, so what I was going to suggest, thank you. So what I would suggest that should be considered as public benefits are the ones that have been identified by the Staff in the Staff Report and affordable housing beyond what would be required by the City’s BMR Program, which I believe includes considering BMR as rental units as opposed to sale, open space areas beyond what would be required by zoning district and Quimby Act, the applicant proposal includes granting for public use a perpetual easement a 9,000 square foot public park area to be maintained by the homeowner’s association, and I will footnote here that in addition to these are going to be the issues that were brought forward in the primary motion in a moment, the public amenities such as the community room available for public use, the project including the community room on the second floor of the mixed use building for the nonprofit public agency owned neighborhood association classes and meetings, improvements to the Alma S treet frontage, sustainable design for the mixed use building including satisfying LEED Silver standards. So long as what then is satisfied are the issues that Commissioner Tuma included in the primary motion. Does that satisfy? Chair Holman: Yes. One caveat. I guess it is okay at this time from the Staff that the affordable housing beyond what is required by the City’s BMR program, we are not quantifying that in any way, shape, or form at this point. Mr. Williams: No, we are not at this point. We feel like we will be beyond it, we don’t know really what degree it will be beyond it. You did mention also rental and that is important. So if we identify that that is sort of a separate but connected benefit. Chair Holman: If I might ask the maker of the motion then for a clarification. The community meeting room available for public use, so you are considering that it would be available for public use and not prescribed for a single use as has been proposed as art classes. Commissioner Tuma: That is correct. Chair Holman: With those clarifications does maker of the motion accept the friendly amendment? Commissioner Tuma: Yes. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I am a little confused. The reason I am confused is that the original motion had a Quimby Act dedication and the motion on public benefits was a smaller dedication of space than the Quimby Act required. I remember the Quimby Act requires 12,000 square feet of parkland and only 9,000 is being provided. Chair Holman: IfI might try to simplify this, I am sorry to interrupt, I am just trying to move this along. So if I might I think what the intention was of Commissioner Garber, and please correct me if I am wrong, the intention was to take the requirement that the park which was part of the original motion that the park meet the minimum Quimby Act open space requirements and Page 67 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 take that and apply that as a public benefit and not to include the language that is in the Staff Report about the 9,000 square foot public park. Commissioner Garber: I will accept the clarification. Chair Holman: Okay, does that resolve your issue? Commissioner Keller: Yes. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: Well it would be disingenuous of me to vote in support of this and then vote against the whole motion. So I will make my comments in the form of questions. Would this include the affordable housing units remaining in perpetuity as long as the PC designation remains in place? Mr. Emslie: We have limits. There is no BMR housing that is in perpetuity. The standard is 59 years and that goes for ownership and rental. Vice-Chair Lippert: But in this case it is a PC so why not have the affordable housing units remain in perpetuity for as long as the PC designation is there? Mr. Larkin: That can come back to the Commission when we actually have the BMR Agreement. It is probably premature to go into a detailed discussion of that because we don’t have that before us. We only know that this is what is proposed. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Maybe to help assuage Commissioner Lippert’s concerns we might want to reflect on the practical life of the Alma Plaza PC that we have now. It is about 50 years. The Edgewood about 50 years. I suspect in 50 years this project is going to be ready for renewal. Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes, but residential housing has a far longer life span to it. Commissioner Burt: Okay, so I guess I will revert then to that truism then at this point the pursuit of the perfect is the enemy of the good, or pretty close to good. I would sure like to see us try to arrive at consensus. I know Commissioners Keller and Holman are being willing to give ground on things that they would ideally like to see as I think all of us are but what I think we are all hoping for is something that is not a perfect project but something that is an improvement and would have a reasonable likelihood of being accepted by Council. That would be my pitch. Chair Holman: So the friendly amendment that has been accepted then is that the public benefits be identified as the Quimby Act minimum requirement, the Silver LEED certification, additional BMR and as rental, and community meeting room which is truly a community meeting room. Are we clear on all that and you have accepted that as the maker of the motion? Page 68 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 Tuma: Chair Holman: Okay. Commissioner Keller: Yes I have. Any other amendments to the motion? Commissioner Keller. Just to be clear, that community meeting room is a public benefit precisely because it is not ground floor retail it is actually additional to that. Commissioner Tuma: Absolutely clear on that from my perspective. Commissioner Keller: Okay. The second thing is I understand that Vice-Chair Lippert seems to be unhappy with what is going on and I am curious what would you rather? Vice-Chair Lippert: No, I am not unhappy with what is going on. I just foresee it going in a different direction that’s all. Chair Holman: Short of any other friendly amendments I have a couple. One is that the mixed use portion of the development be one parcel and that is for purposes of coordination of uses. That the pedestrian and bicycle access accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle access. That not a directive to the applicant but an opportunity for the applicant should they so desire to take advantage of it would be that the vertical portion of the mixed use which I hope would be more integrated and transitional as Commissioner Burt has commented could if they wished incorporate some office space. Commissioner Tuma: Acceptable. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Could I convince you to not include the mixed use portion being one parcel? My only thinking there is it is imaginable to me that you may have a mixed use portion separated by open space and there being another mixed use portion which could be perfectly supportive but may not physically be able to be one parcel. Chair Holman: City Attorney, if there was public open space, Quimby Act sized public open space, that was handed over to the City would that necessarily have to be a separate parcel? Mr. Larkin: Yes. It could be an easement but it is probably better to address that through the Tentative Map at the Tentative Map stage to address your concerns. Chair Holman: Okay. So I would amend the amendment to say that the mixed use portion of the project be one parcel excluding any dedication of any public space. Commissioner Tuma: Also acceptable. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Page 69 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 Cormnissioner Garber: I accept it. Chair Holman: Okay. Any other amendments? Mr. Williams: I am sorry, may I just ask, your last part was essentially to have the applicant evaluate, explore, attempt to incorporate the office into the vertical mixed use component? Chair Holman: That the applicant would have the option of integrating... Mr. Williams: The option. Chair Holman: Yes. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I was only raising my hand to call the question. Chair Holman: Okay. One other piece that I think maybe ought to be a part of the motion. Mr. Larkin: Actually, once you call the question the only option is to not call the question. Chair Holman: This is true. Would you reconsider just for a moment? Commissioner Garber: Sure. Chair Holman: The only reason is because we haven’t talked at all about what we are willing to concede to the benefit of the applicant. I would just suggest that maybe not as a part of the motion but that we have the discussion briefly about what those might be. One might be the relief from the 30-foot front setback providing we can make the findings. What that accomplishes for applicant is if you eliminate the whole 30-foot front setback if I did the calculations correctly that gives them 6,600 square foot of additional floor area that they can build on one level. So that is one. That for the additional BMR units I would be willing to concede to not more density of housing but more floor area ratio on the parcel. Those are a couple of concessions I can think of that might be more enticing to the applicant. If other people have other comments, Commissioner Tuma, Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Tuma: Okay, just to be clear this is not part of the motion but just expanding on ideas that might be acceptable. One of the things that would definitely be acceptable to me would be that the storage and office space as being proposed for being in the basement count towards ground floor retail. The reason is as I understand it grocery stores will need storage and they will need an office. I don’t think there is any real benefit to having that necessarily on the ground floor and I think if it makes the site work better I am happy to do it. Chair Holman: That also is not part of the motion but it is a consideratiom Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I would like to make a friendly amendment that we allow the encroachment of the 30-foot setback provided that there is at least a 12-foot sidewalk. Page 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 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 Tuma: Maybe it is the hour, maybe it is my brain, in concept I don’t have a problem with that I am just trying to make sure I understand what the ramifications of the 12- foot sidewalk would be. Commissioner Keller: Well, my thinking would be. Mr. Larkin: At this point you are getting into Site and Design and I think you might be getting beyond where you are when doing land use designation and the purview of the Commission at this hearing. It will come back on Site and Design and that is when the 12-foot sidewalk and those other things would be appropriate to discuss. Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. Chair Holman: Agreed. Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I would like to call the question. Chair Holman: Okay. So the motion is recommend adoption of the PC zone, incorporate CN standards by reference, incorporate the D Overlay by reference, require a grocery store of at least 15,000 square feet, that a park be incorporated that meets the minimum Quimby Act requirements and it be adjacent to the grocery store, that the site as a whole retain at least the 15 percent required ground floor retail that would be required under the CN zone, with the amendments that the mixed use portion of the project not be parcelized excluding any public dedicated parkland, that there be consideration that the developer has the option of incorporating office in vertical mixed use transitional development, and that the pedestrian and bicycle access be made functional and noncompetitive with each other, and that the public benefits to be considered as the open space matching the Quimby Act requirements as stated as part 0fthe main motion, that the LEED Silver certification be considered a public benefit, that additional BMRs as rental be considered public benefit, and also a community meeting room be considered public benefit. I believe that is the motion. Mr. Williams: What about Commissioner Burt’s? Chair Holman: That was a separate amendment that was voted on separately. Mr. Larkin: But that becomes part of the motion now. Chair Holman: Okay, I’m sorry, I apologize. That the housing types create a fluid transition to mixed use and provide a greater variety of housing types. Thank you for that clarification. Commissioner Keller: Sorry to belabor the issue but did you say that the. 15 FAR of retail be maintained in perpetuity? I wasn’t sure whether you said that. Chair Holman: That was the intention of the maker of the motion, yes. Page 71 1 2 3 4 7 8 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ¯ 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 39 42 43 44 45 46 . Commissioner Keller: Okay, I didn’t hear that. The second thing is I am not sure - you stated that the Quimby Act land dedication be adjacent to the grocery store and I believe the maker of the motion said adjacent to retail. Chair Holman: I believe he said be adjacent to the grocery store. Commissioner Tuma: I did in fact say ’retail.’ MOTION PASSED (5-1-1-0, Commissioner Lippert voted no, Commissioner Sandas absent) Chair Holman: I apologize. Okay, if there are no other clarifications of the motion then we will vote on the motion. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nay) So that motion passes on a five to one vote with Commissioners Tuma, Garber, Keller, Burt and Holman voting aye and Commissioner Lippert voting nay. Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Just a final comment. When Commissioner Lippert called the question we were just adding some comments as to what we found to be areas of latitude for the applicant. I would like to say two things. One is that I think that there is already a significant to the applicant in the density in the form of the housing that they are having. It is not only a dense housing but it is predominantly of a type that is not necessarily what would be preferred but it provides a very high return on investment and that is a benefit to the developer. Second, I would support, and this is an informal comment, Commissioner Tuma’s suggestion that the necessity of the retail portion that was originally proposed as the underground storage and office that that be allowed as a form of acceptable retail. Just an opinion of mine as a Commissioner. The rational being that in order to achieve an accommodation to the developer that in the end that they will accept and is acceptable to the Council I think it doesn’t really matter that those functions be above ground. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, you had a comment. Vice-Chair Lippert: I just want to take a moment and I really want to thank John McNellis, Jim Baer, the Greenbrier Homes people. You made a very persuasive case here. I agree with what you are trying to do with this site. I think it is desirable in terms of having a mixed use project there. It is getting there and what is being proposed before me today that I have difficulty with it is not what you are trying to accomplish. I hope that whatever happens that you are successful in this endeavor, that it does get built, and that Alma Plaza doesn’t remain vacant in perpetuity and that there is a viable center there for our community. I also want to thank the community for coming out and being so passionate about speaking on this item. I think it was real important to hear what the community had to say and they made a very persuasive case as well. I want to thank Staff for sticking with us. I lcnow that this has not been an easy hearing for you and I appreciate your involvement in terms of putting this presentation together. Thank you. Chair Holman: Since we are making comments does anybody else have comments? I have just one comment and one question. One comment being that I am not sure I would support for Page 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 whatever it is worth since other people commented on this, I am not sure I would support counting the storage as part of the ground floor retail because we don’t know what size that would be. The other is basically a question for Staff which is does Staff believe that we during our comments referenced enough Comprehensive Plan policies and goals that those would be carried forward with the motion to the Council? Mr. Emslie: Yes, I think you were very thorough in covering the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as well as your individual thoughts about the project so no problems there. Chair Holman: Great, thank you. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I also appreciate the various parties that patiently waited through this process. I hope that we can figure out some way for the applicant to be able to build a project along the outlines that we talked about expeditiously so that this project can be built. In follow up to what Chair Holman said, if we are to allow the ground floor retail to include basement storage perhaps that can be done with some kind of cap. Thank you. Page 73 Attachment E PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Beth Bourne, Senior Planner March 8, 2007 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment 3401~ 3415~ and 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza): Request for rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) district for demolition of three buildings, including the vacant Albertson’s store, and construction of a mixed use project including 24,000 square feet of retail/commercial space, 14 Below Market Rate apartments, and 39 single family residences. The project includes a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create condominium units. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) comment on the environmental analysis and recommend that the proj ect be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The P&TC should provide direction and identify key issues for the ARB and staffto consider prior to further review by the Commission. This request is made in conformance with the Planned Community District regulations [PAMC Section 18.68.065(b)]. BACKGROUND: On January 30, 2006, the City Council directed the P&TC to initially study the proposal prior to the City Council study session. The P&TC reviewed the preliminary review application on April 26, 2006. The verbatim minutes from that meeting are contained with this report as Attachment H. The City Council conducted a study session on May 1, 2006 and provided further direction. The minutes from that study session are contained with this report as Attachment I. A summary of the site conditions, P&TC and Council review is included in Attachment D (Project Background). Project Description The applicant proposes a conceptual plan for the redevelopment of the site that includes the following revisions from the earlier proposal: The amount of proposed commercial retail area was increased from 19,200 square feet to 24,000 square feet. This includes: a.Mixed use building ground floor retail (17,300 square feet) b.Basement office, storage and service area (3,507 square feet) c.Community room (1,330 square feet) d.Smaller commercial/neighborhood office space (1,863 square feet) 2.Below Market Rate (BMR) housing remains at 14 units located on the second floor of the mixed use building with tenant underground parking. The number of single family residences was reduced from forty-five to thirty-nine units. The detached, small lot, single family residences are a mix of two and three-stories and range in size from 1,690 s.f. to 2,150 s.f. A tentative map to subdivide the parcels and create condominium units is proposed but is not included at this time. 4.The number of proposed parking spaces was increased by 53 spaces for commercial retail shoppers, residents and guests of the BMR and single family housing. Site amenities, including a dedicated public park area, gathering spaces and a community room in the mixed use building for non-profit, public agency or neighborhood association classes or meetings are included. The applicant has provided additional project information in their Development Program Statement and Project Description letter (Attachment B). SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES: Attachment C provides the policies and programs listed in the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element that are pertinent to each of the key considerations. Change of Land Use The change in land use from commercial retail to a mixed-use development of commercial and residential benefits the City by (a) revitalizing a neighborhood center, and (b) providing affordable and market rate housing. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Neighborhood Commercial. The proposed mixed-use development is consistent with this land use designation, which includes "... shopping centers with off-street parking or a cluster of street-front stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. Examples include Alma Plaza, Charleston Center, Edgewood Center and Midtown. Typical uses include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber shops, restaurants, self-service laundries, dry cleaners and hardware stores. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may also be located in this category. Non-residential floor area ratios will range up to 0.4." The proposed project does not alter the uses suggested in the land use definition and the proposed non-residential floor area ratio calculates to 0.13 to 1. The zoning district for the project site is (and has been since 1951) Planned Community (PC). As part of the PC rezoning process, an analysis is required as to what types of uses are City of Palo Alto Page 2 appropriate for redevelopment of this site. In particular, the Business and Economics Element of the Comprehensive Plan has broad goals for the City that can be summarized as: providing a thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto’s residential character; providing a diverse mix of uses; providing for new businesses that provide needed local services and municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality and enhance the community’s physical environment; and providing attractive vibrant business centers. The emphasis is on economic vitality with a diversity of services while maintaining compatibility with residential neighborhoods. In adopting the Housing Element in 2002, the City Council confirmed the appropriateness of building affordable housing on this site. The proposed 53 housing units exceed the objective of the City’s Housing Sites Inventory that identifies the site for a minimum of 8 units. The City will have to consider the economic consequences of allowing residential on an existing commercial retail site and thereby reducing the square footage available for sales tax generating retail use in the city. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-7 states, "Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods." Several retail studies and economic analyses addressing this issue were provided to the Commission members in 2006. Housing Density, Type and BMR Housing Unit Requirement The applicant is proposing fourteen Below Market Rate (BMR) rental units located above the commercial retail building and thirty-nine detached, small lot, single family residences, for a total of 55 housing units and a density of 12.6 units per acre. Residential density in mixed residential and nonresidential projects in multi-family zones (RM-15 and RM-30) are computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use. Site Area Number of Units Density Multi-Family Housing 4.2 acres 14 3.3 units per acre Single Family Housing 4.2 acres 39 9.3 units per acre Combined 4.2 acres 53 total 12.6 units per acre The project site provides an opportunity for the City to require a mix of BMR units to facilitate the objectives of the Housing Element. The City’s BMR requirement for affordable housing at below market rates for very low, low, and moderate-income households is fifteen percent of all housing units on sites of five acres or less. The applicant is proposing that the fourteen rental units above the retail building, be affordable units to meet the BMR requirements for the entire site. As stated in the applicants Project Description Letter, the rental units would be operated by a non-profit housing organization with consideration of teachers having priority. Prior to returning to the P&TC for formal review, staff would research the feasibility and legality of prioritizing potential BMR tenants based on occupation. The project proposal includes a 1,330 square-foot community room that is proposed for use by the BMR tenants and would also be made available to the Pacific Art League at no cost for twenty hours of classes each week. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Several issues regarding the proposed BMR units will be further analyzed following this initial review, including: 1.There may be a significant difference between the BMR sales prices and the market sales prices of the six single family homes that would be required. 2.The proposed apartments are small in size (675 square feet for one-bedrooms and 1,038 square feet for two-bedrooms) and their location over the commercial uses with some units overlooking the loading dock may not be that attractive for some low income units. 3. There is concern about details of resulting proposal to master lease the fourteen rental units: (a) Will this be a commercial condominium? (b) Will the fourteen units really be "leased" or can they be owned by an affordable housing entity? (c) How will maintenance and operating costs be determined and allocated? 4.There are potential security issues with the public access to the proposed community room using the same elevator and stairs as is used by the BMR rental apartment tenants. Size of Retail Area and Neighborhood Center Viability. The applicant has increased the proposed commercial retail area to approximately 24,000 square feet with the following components contained within the mixed use building: (1) 17,300 square- feet of ground floor retail sales and service, (2) 3,500 square-feet of basement office, storage and service, and (3) a 1,330 square-foot community room (for use by BMR tenants and non-profit organizations). The mixed use building is proposed to contain a space (approximately 13,000 s.f. to 18,000 s.f.) for a full-service grocery store and the potential for three to five additional tenant spaces for small retail and personal services. The larger retail tenant space for the grocery store would be specifically limited to that use. The other ground floor tenant spaces would be designated for such other uses that are compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and intent of the commercial center. Office use would not be allowed in this building. In addition to the mixed use building, a two-story commercial building is proposed adjacent to the single-family homes. The building would contain 1,863 square feet of commercial area for retail, personal services, or neighborhood commercial office uses. Staff believes that the proposed size of the commercial retail area is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan policies for the site as a "neighborhood" serving center. Physical constraints and opportunities regarding the proposed use of the site include: ¯ingress/egress, ¯parking, and ¯site.amenities. Ingress/Egress The project’s three access points from Alma Street include one full-access driveway and one limited-access driveway (inbound right-turns only), as well as a long-standing easement agreement with the Stanford Villa Apartments through their south alley. The existing City of Palo Alto Page 4 unsignalized condition at the entrance driveway would be maintained. A traffic analysis report for the project (Attachment L), prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., indicates the proposed driveway configuration will serve the estimated project traffic volumes at acceptable levels of service. The Stanford Villa Apartments’ alley between the project site and the apartments to the north would provide access to the residential units towards the rear of the site. Service vehicles and delivery tracks would access the loading dock at the south (east) comer of the mixed-use building by entering via a right turn from northbound Alma Street, traveling behind the mixed- use building, and exiting from the southern right-turn only driveway. A small grid pattern is proposed for the interior roadways. The proposal does not include vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian access to Emerson Street. Three driveways accessing the three single-family residences would be provided from Ramona Street. Pedestrian and bicycle access would be provided by connections to Alma Street and Ramona Street. The proposed site plan includes sidewalks along internal alleys to provide pedestrian access to the single-family residential units. The proposed pedestrian walkway along the southern perimeter of the site connecting Alma Street to Ramona Street will include a fence at the property line, precluding public access from Emerson Street. Parking The project is proposing a parking supply that meets Zoning Code standards with one parking space for every 200 gross square feet of intensive retail area (1/200), one space for every 250 gross square feet of neighborhood commercial space (1/250), one space for every 1,000 gross square feet of storage space (1/1000), two spaces per 2-bedroom BMR unit and 1.5 spaces per 1- bedroom BMR unit, and two spaces per single-family dwelling with guest parking at one space per three single-family dwellings. This rate would require provision of 209 parking spaces, which would be provided on site. The project also includes construction of the reconfiguration of the frontage road (along Alma Street, between East Meadow and the project site) which would result in an increase of four parking spaces along the frontage road. Open Spa ce/Site A rnen ities The proposed project incorporates open space on the site for the public and the residents of the BMR units and market rate housing. Site amenities include a dedicated public park area (8,904 square feet) adjacent to the mixed-use building, landscaped pedestrian pathways, and smaller gathering spaces. The BMR housing units include private balconies ranging in size from 78 square feet to 133 square feet. Zoning Process The applicant is proposing that the site be rezoned from Planned Community (PC-1362) to a new Planned Community zone. The Land Use and Development Parameters for the new Planned Community Ordinance are contained in Attachment A. The applicant’s Development Program Statement and Project Description, which describe building types and uses, site improvements and project benefits, are contained in Attachment B. The site is currently zoned PC-1362, which refers to the originating ordinance that established the zone in 1951. PC districts are established to "...accommodate developments for residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial~ or otheractivities, including City of Palo Alto Page 5 combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The PC district is intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments, which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan." Any use may be permitted or conditionally permitted in a PC district, as long as it is a use that is approved at the adoption of the zone. The PC zoning district offers greater flexibility for the proposed development in regards to site regulations while providing the community with a public benefit. The PC district does not specify development regulations such as setbacks, but rather allows for the City to adopt, as appropriate, specific regulations to be applied to a specific PC site. However, Section 18.68.150 of the Zoning Code, PC districts special requirements, does set forth certain minimum and maximum development regulations for project site abutting or having any portion located within 150 feet of any RE, R-l, R-2, RM, or any PC district permitting single-family development or multiple family development. The applicant proposes bringing the commercial retail building forward towards Alma Street to the property line. The project site has a special street setback of 30-feet on Alma Street, which is a designated arterial in the Comprehensive Plan. Current zoning standards do not permit a building to encroach into a special setback without a variance. The project, as proposed, would also require additional variances or Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE’s) for setbacks and daylight planes for the detached single-family housing. Prior to the Architectural Review Board’s review, a more detail development plan will be required. At that time, staff will review the project for compliance with the proposed PC zone district. Following the planning commission’s initial review of the development program statement, development plan, and development schedule of the PC application, the review process for the adoption of the new Planned Community district shall be as follows: ao If the planning commission acts favorably in its initial review of the PC application without modification of either the proposed project or its conditions of approval, the development plan shall be submitted to the architectural review board for review. The architectural review board shall make a recommendation on the development plan based on the findings for architectural review. The development plan as recommended by the architectural review board shall then return to the planning commission for final planning commission review and recommendation before being submitted to the city council for final action. If the planning commission does not recommend approval of either the proposed project or its conditions of approval with modifications acceptable to the Applicant, the Application will be forwarded to the city council for review. The Council may then either 1) approve the PC district application for zoning and forward the development plan to the architectural review board for review, or 2) deny the applicant’s request. If the Council approves the PC application, the architectural review board shall make a recommendation on the development plan based on the findings for architectural review. The development plan as recommended by the City of Palo Alto Page 6 architectural review board shall then return to the planning commission for final planning commission review and recommendation before being submitted to the city council for final action. Public Benefit Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts in that the project includes public benefits that are inherent to the project and above those required by city zoning districts. The applicant’s project description letter (Attachment B) contains a list of the applicant’s proposed public benefits. Tentative Map A tentative map to subdivide the parcels and create condominium units is proposed. The accompanying tentative map application was submitted on July 18, 2006, before the City’s adoption of Parkland Dedication Fees (Quimby Act). The parkland dedication fees requirement only applies to subdivision or parcel map applications submitted after August 18, 2006. The tentative map has not been revised to reflect the current proposal before the P&TC, including revisions to the proposed project, including changes in the dedicated park’s square footage and single-family lot’s square-footage, and therefore is not included for Commission review at this time. ENVIRONI~IENTAL REVIEW: The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) ( Initial Study) was prepared for the project and is contained in Attachment L. Based upon the EIA, it was determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The two mitigations measures are (1) incorporating three existing trees (three coast live oaks and one valley oak) into the site design and mitigation for noise impacts for the residential units, and (2) incorporating design features into the project to mitigate noise impacts to the residential units closest to Alma Street. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review between February 16, 2007 through March 7, 2007. Three of the source references (Arborist’s Report, Noise Assessment, Traffic Impact Analysis) on which the Mitigated Negative Declaration is based are provided to the P&TC members (Attachment L). ATTACHMENTS: A.Land Use and Development Parameters for Planned Community Ordinance B.Applicant’s Development Program Statement and Project Description C.Key Considerations/Policy Implications Matrix D.Project Background E.Zoning Compliance Table F.Planning and Transportation Commission April 26, 2006 Study Session staff report without attachments (can be viewed at: http ://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish!planning- transportation-meetings/documents/AlmaPlazaRpt.pdf) G.City Council May 1, 2006 Pre-screening City Manager’s Report without attachments (can be viewed at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.or,Ucityagenda!publisla!cmrs/documents/CMR205- City of Palo Alto Page 7 I. J. K. L. M. N. Verbatim Minutes excerpt from April 26, 2006, PTC Study Session Minutes from May 1, 2006 City Council Pre-screening Applicant’s LEED and Green Building Checklists Applicant’s "Brief History of Alma Plaza" Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Plans (Commission only) Correspondence COURTESY COPIES: Patrick Costanzo, Jr., Executive Vice President, Greenbriar Homes Communities, Inc. John McNellis, McNellis Partners, LLC James Baer, Premier Properties David L. Van Der Wilt Sheri Furman Jay Hammer Marilyn Keller Martin Stone PREPARED BY:Beth Bourne, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY:Amy French, Manager of Current Planning DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis liams, Assistant Director City of Palo Alto Page 8 TO: Attachment F PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: AGENDA DATE: Beth Bourne, Senior Planner March 28, 2007 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment SUBJECT:3401, 3415, and 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza): Request for rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) district for demolition of three buildings, including the vacant Albertson’s store, and construction of a mixed use project including 24,000 square feet of retail/commercial space, 14 Below Market Rate apartments, and 39 single family residences. The project includes a Tentative Map to subdivide the parcel and create condominium units. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council deny the request for a rezoning application to a Planned Community (PC) district for the three properties located at 3401, 3415, and 3445 Alma Street and instead recommend that the P&TC initiate a rezoning of the site to Neighborhood Commercial (CN). SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES: /~ On March 8, 2007, the P&TC conducted a public hearing to review the proposed Planning Community zone change application. The public hearing was not closed and the item was continued to March 28, 2007. The verbatim minutes from that meeting are contained with this report as Attachment A. In summary, the P&TC indicated that (1) more retail area is needed, such as a minimum 15% of the site area comparable to the CN zone regulations, (2) housing should be better integrated with the commercial area with more market rate apartments above retail and some shared wall duets for the single family homes, (3) the open space should be more integrated and the park should be larger, and (4) pedestrian connedtivity should be improved and a more inviting gateway provided, with a concern over the proposed zero front setback without corresponding provision of improved open space behind the retail area. In addition to providing minutes and a brief summary of the March 8 meeting, this report outlines an alternate approach to zoning and sets forth the process for rezoning the site to the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) district to implement its Comprehensive Plan land use designation, consistent with some of the discussion at the March 8 P&TC meeting: This report also provides additional information to the Commissioners as requested at the March 8 hearing regarding the following issues: 1.Below Market Rate (BMR) housing 2.Public Benefits 3.Parkland Dedication - Quimby Act 4.Prescriptive Parldng Rights 5.Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning 1.BMR Housing Unit Requirement The applicant is proposing that the fourteen rental units above the retail building be affordable units to meet the BMR requirements for the entire site. As stated in the applicant’s project description letter, the rental units would be operated by a non-profit housing organization with consideration of teachers having priority. The City’s BMR requirement for affordable housing at below market rates for very low, low, and moderate-income households is fifteen percent of all housing units on sites of five acres or less. Additional work is needed to determine the valuation of the BMR units and any potential public benefits. As stated in the March 8 P&TC staff report, there may be a considerable difference between the BMR sales prices and the market sales prices of the six single family homes that would be required. 2.Public Benefit The applicant has included a list of their proposed public benefits in the applicant’s project description letter. Development of the site under the provisions of the PC District would require the project to result in public benefits that are (1) not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts, (2) inherent to the project, and (3) above those required by city zoning districts. Staff believes that the following public benefits may be worth consideration, though additional analysis is required to determine their applicability and extent: Affordable housing, beyond what would be required by the City’s BMR program. Open space areas, beyond what would be required by zoning district and Quimby Act. The applicant’s proposal includes granting for public use a perpetual easement for a 9,000 s.f. public park area to be maintained by the homeowners’ association. Public amenities, such as a community room available for public use. The project includes a community room on the second floor of the mixed use building for non- profit, public agency or neighborhood association classes and meetings. Improvements to the Alma Street frontage. Sustainable design for the mixed use building, including satisfying LEED Silver Medal standards. Staff believes that the following list of the applicant’s proposed public benefits would not qualify according to the PC District criteria: City of Palo Alto Page 2 ¯Revitalizing the site to enhance retail vitality by developing 24,000 of retail and commercial area. °Improving the jobs/housing balance by providing more housing and less retail area. °Developing bicycle amenities, unless they were substantially beyond the requirements in PAMC 18.83 Off-street parking ° Transportation, park, library and community center impact fees (required for all projects) ¯Urban design features of the project that satisfy ARB findings 3. Parkland Dedication - Qnimby Act The City may require this subdivision to pay or dedicate land subject to the Quimby Act up until the time of the final approval of the tentative subdivision map. The City’s past practice has been that as regulations change, the City’s regulations in affect at the time the application is submitted are applied. Should the Quimby Act be applied to this project, the fees would apply as follows: For projects creating 50 or fewer parcels or condominium units, the applicant would not be required to dedicate land, but rather would pay a fee in-lieu. The fee is equivalent to the value of the land that the City would otherwise requireg to be dedicated. The square footage is calculated as follows: 318 square feet per single-family unit. Using the city’s default of $90/square foot to calculate fees, the fee for the 39 single-family units would be approximately $1,116,000 (39 units x 318 square feet (12,402 square feet) x $90). Should the developer choose to dedicate land instead of in-lieu fees, the required land area would be 12,402 square feet. 4. Prescriptive Parking Rights The property owners of the adjacent medical office stated that they believe they have prescriptive parking rights based on the past practice of their staff and patients parking on the Alma Plaza lot over the last 31 years. If the land has been used unconditionally, the adjacent property may have legal rights. This would, however, be a private matter between two private property owners and the City would not typically get involved unless the land was being used for a public purpose. The project is proposing a parking supply that meets Zoning Code standards with one parking .space for every 200 gross square feet of intensive retail area (1/200), one space for every 250 gross square feet of neighborhood commercial space (1/250), one space for every 1,000 gross square feet of storage space (1/1000), two spaces per 2-bedroom BMR unit and 1.5 spaces per 1- bedroom BMR unit, and two spaces per single-family dwelling with guest parking at one space per three single-family dwellings. This rate would require provision of 209 parking spaces, which would be provided on site. 5. Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zoning At the March 8, 2007, P&TC hearing, several Commissioners provided direction to use the current CN standards as a baseline for comparison of the proposal as a "neighborhood center." Staffbelieves that rezoning to CN rather than a PC would assure a greater quantity of retail than the PC proposal and would provide greater certainty that a future development would accommodate a neighborhood center, while also providing for a mixed use project. A mixed use project would require Site and Design Review if more than four residential units are proposed. Under the CN criteria, the existing Alma Plaza center could be renovated or rebuilt as a City of Palo Alto Page 3 conforming use. The CN neighborhood commercial district is intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas primarily accommodating retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking, and office uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood, under regulations that will assure maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas. The adjacent medical office property to the south is zoned Neighborhood Commercial. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the three properties is Neighborhood Commercial, which would be consistent with the proposed CN zone district Attachment B to this staff report is a zoning table that compares the proposed project to the current CN standards. As shown on the table, the density and floor area ratio standards for the 4.2 acre (183,546 square-feet) site are as follows: Residential Density (net) Maximum Residential Floor Area (FAR) Maximum Non-Residential Floor Area (FAR) Minimum Mixed Use Ground Floor Commercial Floor Area (FAR) Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) CN Mixed Use Zoning Standard 15 units / acre 0.5:1 0.4:1 Minimum 15% of total project FAR = 27,531 sq. ft. required 0.9:1 Proposed Project 12.6 units / acre .54:1 (.07 BMR units + .47 SFD’s) .13:1 18,250 s.f. of ground floor commercial FAR =10% of total project FAR .67:1 Zone Change Process The process for a City-initiated zone change is outlined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code under Section 18.98. The steps are summarized as follows: The City Council or Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) directs the Plamaing Director to initiate a zoning amendment. The PTC sets a date for a regular or special meeting of the PTC, including a public hearing and notice to the property owner and surrounding property owners. The Commission may recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning, modification of the area to be rezoned, application of more’ or less restrictive zoning, or denial of the rezoning. The decision of the Commission is forwarded to the City Council, including the Commission’s findings and determinations for the requested zone change. Upon notice and a public hearing, the City Council takes final action regarding the zoning. City of Palo Alto Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed PC project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Initial Study) was prepared for the project and based upon the EIA, it was determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review from February 16 through March 7, 2007. If the PC is denied, no environmental review is necessary. ATTACHMENTS: A.Excerpt of Verbatim Minutes of the March 8, 2007 P&TC meeting B.Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zoning Compliance Table C.Correspondence received after March 8th meeting. COURTESY COPIES: Patrick Costanzo, Jr., Executive Vice President, Greenbriar Homes Communities, Inc. John McNellis, McNellis Partners, LLC James Baer, Premier Properties David L. Van Der Wilt Sheri Furman Jay Hammer Marilyn Keller Martin Stone PREPARED BY:Beth Bourne, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY:Amy French, Manager of Current Planning DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams, Assistant Director City of Palo Alto Page 5 ATTACHMENT G PROJECT BACKGROUND 3401, 3415, and 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) Existing Site Conditions The 4.2-acre project site is located on Alma Street between East Meadow Road and E1 Verano Avenue. Surrounding land uses are apartments to the north, single-family residential to the east and south, medical offices to the south, and Alma Street and the railroad lines to the west. The site contains a total of 45,161 s.f. of building area in three buildings: (1) the 17,168 s.f. former Albertson’s store, (2) the 14,630 s.f. two-story retail building, and (3) the 13,363 s.f. single-story retail building. There are 257 existing surface parking spaces at the site. The site is currently vacant. Project Description The applicant is requesting a zoning change from the existing PC-1362 zone, adopted in 1951, to a more relevant PC zone. The recommended development standards of the proposed new PC zone would allow future development of the project site, which is currently limited by the existing PC square-footages, setbacks, heights and parking standards. The applicant is also proposing a residential element, which is not currently allowed under the 1951 PC zone. More specifically, the applicant is requesting the zone change from the existing PC-1362 zone to a new PC zone to allow for the following: The demolition of the entire existing +45,600 square-feet of vacant building area, which includes: (a) The existing +17,600 square-foot (both floors) grocery store. (b) The existing +_10,300 square-foot two-story retail/office building (adjacent to the grocery store). (c) The existing +_4,300 square-foot single-story retail building (adjacent to the two-story building). (d) The existing +_13,400 square-foot single-story, freestanding retail building. (An existing floor area ratio of 0.25:1) The construction of +_24,000 square-feet of retail commercial building area, which includes: (a) New +_17,300 square-feet of ground floor retail sales and service. (b) New +_3,507 square-feet of basement office, storage and service. (c) New _+1,330 square-foot community room. (d) A new +-1,863 square-foot commercial building. (e) Related site improvements, which include the reconfiguration and relandscaping of the parking lot. (A proposed commercial floor area ratio of 0.13:1) The construction of fourteen Below-Market-Rate units above the mixed-use building (totaling +13,267 square feet of living area - unit size range from 686- City of Palo Alto Page 1 933 square-feet for each 1-bedroom unit and 1,091-1,230 for each 2-bedroom unit). (A proposed BMR residential floor area ratio of 0.07:1) o The construction of thirty-nine single-family, two- and three-story residential units (totaling +86,281 square-feet - ranging in size from 1,817 square-feet to 2,416 square-feet for each unit). (A proposed residential floor area ration of 0.47:1) 5. A Tentative Map to subdivide the parcels and create condominium units. The applicant’s Program Development Statement and Project Description letter are contained in Attachment B. A description of the applicant’s sustainability program is provided as Attachment J. Previous P&TC and City Council Review At the April 26, 2006 P&TC study session, the Commission made a recommendation to the Council by a majority of the members as summarized below: The proposed project for the Alma Plaza site would be a mixed-use project with a substantial amount of retail comparable to other existing neighborhood centers in Palo Alto. There would be less housing than was currently proposed for the project, and that the housing includes better transitions to the residential neighborhoods regarding design; Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and density. Signalization into Alma Plaza for accessibility improvements would be carefully considered. Easement issues need to be rectified and the pedestrianand bicycle access would be essential to a successful center. Parking would be based on the standards in the Zoning Ordinance. Housing would be more compatible and transitional for the single-family housing and a variety of housing types and referred to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) letter dated April 21, 2006, regarding Below Market Rate (BMR) contribution issues. The zoning would remain as a Planned Community (PC). The verbatim minutes from this meeting are contained with this report as Attachment H. On May 1, 2006, the City Council conducted a study session with no formal recommendation made by the Council. The minutes from this study session are contained with this report as Attachment I. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Attachment H Zoning Category Site Area Site Width Site Depth Front Yard Rear Yard Interior Side Yard Build.to-Lines Maximum Site Coverage Landscape Open Space Coverage Usable Open Space Maximum Height Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential districts or a res. PC district Residential Density (net) (3) Maximum Residential Floor Area (FAR) Maximum Non- Residential Floor Area (FAR) CN Mixed Use Zoning Standard None required 0 to 10 feet minimum to create an 8’- 12’ effective sidewalk width 10’ for residential portion; no requirement for Commercial portion 10’ if adjacent to existing residential 50% of frontage built to setback 50% = 91,773 s.f. 35% 200 sq. ft. per unit for 5 or fewer units (2); 150 sq. ft. per unit for 6 units or more 35 feet Daylight plane height and slope identical to those to the most restrictive residential zone abutting the lot line 15 units / acre Proposed Project 183,546 square feet Varies Varies 0 feet Varies Varies - 4 feet to 17 feet (DEE or Variance required per PC zone section l& 68.150) > 60% (complies) 35% = 63,805 s.f. 39% = 71,850 s.f. 77 to 133 sq.ft balconies for each BMR unit 8,904 s.f. park 32 feet to highest point of the mixed use building and maximum 35 feet height of the single family units Varies = To be determined through the Architectural Review Board process (DEE or Variance required per PC zone section 18.68.150) 12.6 units / acre 0,5:1 .54:1 (.07 BMR units + .47 SFD’s) 0.4:1 .13:1 Page 1 Zoning Category Minimum Mixed Use Ground Floor Commercial Floor Area (FAR) (4) Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Parking CN Mixed Use Zoning Standard Minimum 15% of total project FAR = 27,531 sq. ft. required 0.9:1 18.83 standards apply Proposed Project 18,250 s.f. of ground floor commercial FAR =10% of total project FAR .67:1 209 spaces provided on site Bike parking to be determined through the ARB process (1) (2) (3) (4) 25’ driveway access permitted regardless of frontage. Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground; (3) minimum private open space dimension 6’; and (4) minimum common open space dimension 12’. Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial uses. To ensure the suitability for a range of commercial and retail uses, commercial spaces shall have 30’ average minimum depth, 15’ minimum width, and 15’ ground floor ceiling height. Page 2 From: AccessPar@aol.com [mailto:AccessPar@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:06 AM To: Council, City Cc: French, Amy; jimbaer@prprop.com Subject: Approve Alma Plaza Attachment I Re: Approve Alma Plaza After nearly ten years, now is the time to grant approval for a feasible Alma Plaza project. For these past years no one has benefited from an abandoned urban infill site like Alma Plaza and if anything it has been, unfortunately, a target for crime. As Chair of the Government Action Committee for the Chamber of Commerce and Member of the Chamber’s Board of Directors I voted requesting your approval and that letter from the Chamber is in your packet. Knowing that I would be unable to attend the Hearing on April 16 I wanted to personally urge your support as not just an active member of the Chamber’s leadership but as a resident who has been active in many aspects of our community and especially when I participated in the Comprehensive Plan Update defining Neighborhood Commercial. Thank you for your consideration, Lee Wieder ..... Original Message ..... From: Alan Greenwald [mailto:aegarg@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, April i0, 2007 11:34 AM To: French, Amy Subject: approve Alma Plaza I have followed the Alma Plaza process the last several years. I realize the challenges any project at this location would present. However, after many years, It is important to grant approval for some feasible Alma Plaza project. Alan E. Greenwald, M.D. From; Ari Cartun [mailto:aricartun@mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:43 AM To-" Bourne, Beth Subject; Alma Plaza Plan I just wanted to put myself on record as supporting the McNellis/Greenbriar Homes Alma Plaza Plan Ari Cartun 3506 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-494-8684 Home Study Phone and Fax: 650-813-9011 Cellphone: 650-799-2395 COUNTING THE OMER between Passover and Shavuot C’:o~tnt fo,, ),otJrselveS, t?on~ the day after the Hotiday,., Attachment J *REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto *Revisions appear in underlined text. 1.Project Title: o o Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Alma Plaza - Planned Community Zone Change and Tentative Map Project Location: City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Application Number(s): Beth Bourne, Senior Planner, (650) 617-3196 Project Sponsor Name and Address: 3401, 3415, and 3445 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 7.Property Owner: 06PLN-000206 9. 10. Patrick Costanzo, Jr., Greenbriar Homes Communities, Inc. 43160 Osgood Road Fremont, CA 94539 John McNellis, McNellis Partners, LLC 419 Waverly Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Trestle Alma, LLC 419 Waverly Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 General Plan Designation:Neighborhood Commercial Zoning:Planned Community (PC-1362) Project Description: The applicant is requesting a zoning change from the existing PC-1362 zone, adopted in 1951, to a more relevant PC zone. The recommended development standards of the proposed new PC zone would allow future development of the project site, which is currently limited by the existing PC square-footages, setbacks, heights and parking standards. The applicant is also proposing a residential element, which is not currently allowed under the 1951 PC zone. More specifically, the applicant is requesting the zone change from the existing PC-1362 zone to a new PC zone to allow for the following: 1.The demolition of the entire existing +45,600 square-feet of vacant building area, which includes: (a) The existing +17,600 square-foot (both floors) grocery store. 3401, 3415 and 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Stady/Environmental Assessment Page 1 (b)The existing +10,300 square-foot two-story retail/office building (adjacent to the grocery store). (c)The existing +_4,300 square-foot single-story retail building (adjacent to the two-story building). (d)The existing +_13,400 square-foot single-story, freestanding retail building. (An existing floor area ratio of 0.25:1) The construction of +_24,000 square-feet of retail commercial building area, which includes: (a)New _+17,300 square-feet of ground floor retail sales and service. (b)New _+3,507 square-feet of basement office, storage and service. (c)New __.1,330 square-foot community room. (d)A new _+1,863 square-foot commercial building. (e)Related site improvements, which include the reconfiguration and relandscaping of the parking lot. (A proposed commercial floor area ratio of 0.13:1) The construction of fourteen Below-Market-Rate units above the mixed-use building (totaling _+13,267 square feet of living area - unit size range from 686-933 square-feet for each 1-bedroom unit and 1,091- 1,230 for each 2-bedroom unit). (A proposed BMR residential floor area ratio of 0.07:1) The construction of thirty-nine single-family, two- and three-story residential units (totaling +_86,281 square-feet - ranging in size from 1,817 square-feet to 2,416 square-feet for each unit). (A proposed residential floor area ration of 0.47:1) 5. A Tentative Map to subdivide the parcels and create condominium units. Alternative Project as Recommended by Planning and Transportation Commission on March 281 2007 Approval of the project described above with the rezoning to a PC district with the CN uses and standards and site and design review incorporated by reference with the following additional conditions: ¯Grocery_ store be included with a minimum size of 15,000 sq. ft; ¯Parkland be provided to the level required by the Quimby Act and located adjacent to retail; ¯Minimum of. 15 FAR ground floor retail be maintained over the site as a whole in perpetuity; ¯Housin.~ design to create a fluid transition between mixed use, housing and open space and to provide a greater variety of housing types; ° The mixed use portion of the development to be one parcel (excluding the areas dedicated as public open space); °Pedestrian access to accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists; and ¯Option to include office space in the vertical mixed use component of the project. ¯Public benefits, including: Quimby Act minimum park land dedication; LEED Silver certification; Additional BMR as rental units; and Community meeting room (to serve a community, not only art studiok. The traffic impact study prepared for the Initial Study considered the additional trips generated by a CN zoning for the retail component. No additional significant environmental impacts are expected, therefore the modified document would need not be recirculated. Ahna Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & hzitial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 2 11. 12. 13. 14. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The 4.2-acre project site is located on Alma Street between East Meadow Road and E1 Verano Avenue. Surrounding land uses are apartments to the north, single-family residential to the east and south, medical offices to the south, and Alma Street and the railroad lines to the west. Other public agencies whose approval is required: No other public agency review is required. Date Prepared: February 16, 2007 Public Review Period: February 16 to March 7, 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics X Agriculture Resources Air Quality X Biologica! Resources X Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials X X Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources X Noise X Population/Housing X Public Services X Recreation X Transportation/Traffic X Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance None DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE X Ahna Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 3 imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Pro~j~ct Planner /~Director of Planning and Community Environment Date Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4)"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) b) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c)Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8)This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever Ahna Plaza - 3445 Alma Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study/Environn~ental Assessment Page 4 format is selected. 9)The explanation of each issue should identify: a)The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b)The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Ahna Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & bfftial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 5 Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated I.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista?1, 2 X b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not 1, 2 X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 1, 2 quality of the site and its surroundings?X d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which 1, 2 X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland: Would the project: a) b) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1,2 1, 2 1, 2 X X X III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) b) c) d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors (residential, school) to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1, 16 1,8, 16 1, 16 1, 16 X X X X Ahna Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? SOUFC¢S 1, 16 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact X IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) b) c) d) e) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state conservation plan? 1,2 (N-l) 1, 2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-l) X No ImPact X X X X V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 1, 2 X an historical resource pursuant to 15064.5?(L-7) b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 1, 2 X an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?(L-8) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1, 2 resource or site or unique geologic feature?X Ahna Plaza- 3445 Alma Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & h~itial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred 1, 2 X outside of formal cemeteries?(L-8) VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i)XRupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 2 (N- 5), 6 2 (N-5, N-10), 17 2 (N-5, N-8, N- 10), 17 X X iv) Landslides?2 (N- 5), 17 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?1 X c) d) e) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 2 (N-5) 6 2 (N- 5), 6 1,6 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X X VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X X Alma Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & hdtial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources b) c) d) e) g) h) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile (1,320’) of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sougces 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 (N-7) 1,2 (N-7) Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality Standards or waste discharge 1, 2, 10 X requirements? b)X1,2 (N-2) 1, 6, 10c)X Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Ahna Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & h~itial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. Sources 1, 6, 10 1, 6, 10 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact X X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water~ quality? 1, 10 X g)1, 2, 10 X 1, 2 (N-6), 10 Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map 0r other flood hazard delineation map? h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 1,2 (N-6, NlS), 10 a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or No Impact X X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?1, 2 X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: X X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 1, 2 X natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1,2 X Alma Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources B Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: Sources 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated a) b) c) d) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) b) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 2 Less Than Significant Impact X X X X X No Impact X X X X c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 1 X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Ahna Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & bdtial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 11 Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public facilities? 1, 11 1 1,2 1,2 1,2 X X X X X XIV.RECREATION a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1,2 1,2 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c)Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1,2 (T- 7, T-8), 8, 10, 12 1, 8, 12 X X X X Ahna Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 12 X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Sources 1, 3, 12 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X e) Result in inadequate emergency access?2, 10 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?1, 2, 8, 12 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 1, 2, 8,X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,12 bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 1, 2, 13 X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)1, 2, 13 X c) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1, 2, 13 1, 2, 13 1, 2, 13 d) e) X X X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1, 2, 13 X accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 1, 2, 13 X regulations related to solid waste? Alma Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 13 XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Xa)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X SOURCE REFERENCES: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Site visit, planner’s knowledge of project, review of project plans dated February 2, 2007 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 & Maps L-7, L-8, L-9, N-l, N-2, N-3, N-5, N-6, N-8, N-10, T-7, T-8 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) and Title 16 (Building Regulations) Uniform Building Code (UBC) Arborist Report & Tree Inventory, prepared by Hortscience, December 2006 Geotechnicai Investigation, prepared by TRC Lowney, December 12, 2006 Environmental Noise Assessments, prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., January 11, 2007 and January 30, 2007 Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, January 2007 City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist’s comments City of Palo Alto Public Works Department comments City of Palo Alto Fire Department comments City of Palo Alto Transportation Division comments City of Palo Alto Utility Department comments Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 8 (Trees and Vegetation) State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List dated December, 1994 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996 (updated 12/99) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map ATTACHMENTS: A.Arborist Report & Tree Inventory, prepared by Hortscience, December 2006 B.Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by TRC Lowney, December 12, 2006 C.Environmental Noise Assessments, prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., January 11, 2007 and January 30, 2007 D.Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, January 2007 Ahna Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 14 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I. Aesthetics a) The project site is not located along any of the designated scenic corridors, vistas, waterways, roadways, or pedestrian trails identified in the Comprehensive Plan. This project does not block any scenic vista, nor is it located near a scenic highway. b)The project consists of the removal of the existing buildings on the site. Vegetation, including shrubs and trees, may be removed for construction of private improvements. Although these changes would change the appearance of the property as viewed from adjacent properties, including Stanford Villa apartments, the changes are not expected to result in significant impacts. As a condition of the architectural review for the project, City designated trees and protected trees, on the project site would be protected and retained during construction of the development. The Planning Arborist has identified potential impacts that may result from the removal of an existing row of mature trees (#57-66)), which currently function as an important shading and screening element for the adjacent multi-family property to the north (three-story apartment living units). While the trees’ are rated with varying condition, the shading component on the southern exposure currently mitigates some level of heat island effects of the shared asphalt driveway, carports and bedroom units above. The existing trees also function as a visual screen between the three-story window apartments and the proposed new project. Removal of these trees may change to the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Provision of replacement trees and dedicated growing space needed to achieve large scale canopy trees would be required as a condition of approval. To address potential aesthetic impacts, the physical improvements to the project site will need to be finalized through the City’s Architectural Review Board process. This review process evaluates the project to promote compliance with community standards for site planning and appearance. The Planning & Transportation Commission and City Council will also review the aesthetics of the project. d)Primary sources of light and glare in the daytime are reflections from windows and light colored surfaces. While some amount of glare could be expected during the daytime, it would be similar or even less than that which is created by existing buildings on site. No unusual sources of daytime glare from the project would be expected. Lighting impacts from the retail commercial and residential uses on the site are not expected to be a significant impact. The project applicant will provide details of lighting fixtures and a photometric plan for review by the Architectural Review Board to access lighting impacts on the area near the site. The proposed project will be reviewed by the ARB prior to submittal of a building permit to ensure that lighting levels are appropriate for the site and not detrimental to the surrounding land uses. This review would reduce any light or glare impacts to a less than significant level. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than Significant None required II. Agriculture Resources (a-e)The proposed project site is located in a developed urban area and not located in an area of "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not regulated by the Williamson Act. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: No impact None required Ahna Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 15 III. Air Quality a,b,c) The City of Palo Alto utilizes the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) thresholds of significance for air quality impacts, as follows: Construction Impacts: The proposed project will involve grading, paving, and landscaping which has the potential to cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in airborne particulate matter. Dust related impacts are considered potentially significant but can be mitigated with the application of standard dust control measures. Demolition and new construction activities could have a significant impact to air quality through the release of respirable particulate matter concentrations. Although there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the subject site, the project is subject to City Building Department regulations that require approval of adequate dust abatement plans for construction activities for both demolition and new construction prior to the issuance of a building permit. The dust abatement plan requirements would reduce the potential significant air quality impacts relating to demolition and new construction of the project to less than significant. Long Term/Operational Impacts: Long-term and operational project emissions would stem primarily from motor vehicles associated with the proposed project. As discussed in the Transportation/Traffic section of this Initial Study/Environmental Assessment, the project is not expected to result in a significant number of new vehicle trips. Motor vehicles are the major source of ozone precursors and contributors to carbon monoxide generation in the Bay Area. The trips generated by the proposed use do not require a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Therefore, long-term air-quality impacts related to motor vehicle operation are expected to be less than significant. d)Sensitive receptors are defined as children, elderly, or ill people who can be more adversely affected by air quality problems. The proposed project will be located adjacent to developed residential areas. Although sensitive receptors are in the immediate vicinity of the project, City development standards and specific conditions of project approval would reduce potential negative air quality impacts of the project to less than significant. e)The proposed project would consist of retail commercial and residential uses. These uses do not typically create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed project is not expected to create objectionable odors when the project is complete. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than significant with architectural review conditions of approval None IV. Biological Resources a-d) The site is currently occupied with vacant retail/grocery store buildings and related site improvements. City staff has visited the site and determined that no endangered, threatened or rare species of plants or animals are present. The project site is not shown to be a designated habitat in the Comprehensive Plan. Also, the applicant has provided the City with an updated tree inventory and assessment (Attachment A of this Initial Study/Environmental Assessment). The arborist report prepared in December 2006 by Hort Science has identified trees and shrubs of varying size and health on the site. The report has concluded that the preservation of fifteen trees could be accomplished through the standard tree protection practices. The project site contains 66 trees representing 19 species, including four ordinance size trees protected by the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations). These are coast live oaks #16, #20 and #42 and valley oak #21. Mitigation for these trees is required according to the tree preservation ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10, which contains regulations for properties containing protected trees. In addition to the retention of the 15 trees recommended in the arborist report, the Planning Arborist has recommended retention of the ordinance size coast live oaks #16 and #20 and valley oak #21. Suitability for Ahna Plaza -3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 16 preservation was rated moderate to good, and should be integrated into the design as a mitigation measure. Removal of #16-21 would require replacement as required by the Tree Ordinance. Staff has deemed ordinance size coast live #42 on lot 28 is critical to preserve as an important Ramona Street amenity and ordinance protected tree. Other non-protected trees have also been identified for removal, due to the proposed location of the mixed use building and single family dwellings. Residual Impact:Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the biological related impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures: MM #1 Incorporate ordinance size coast live oaks #16, #20 and #42 and valley oak #21 into the site design and implement tree protection measures in the design phase and protection requirements consistent with the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.00 and HortScience tree preservation guidelines. A security guarantee agreement shall be prepared for the ordinance trees to be protected to ensure survival and replacement conditions exist. V. Cultural Resources a-d) The project site is located in an area of moderate sensitivity, as indicated in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. A one-story building is located on the site. If approved, the project would contain conditions in the form of instructions in the case of the discovery of any cultural resources during demolition or construction. The following standard conditions would result in impacts that are less than significant. If during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. The Director of Planning and Community Environment will decide the significance of an archaeological discovery and necessary mitigation measures. Residual Impact: Less than significant with architectural review conditions of approval Mitigation Measures: None VI. Geology and Soils a, c-d) A geotechnical investigation was conducted on this site by TRC Lowney in May, 2005. Subsurface borings were taken at various points on the project site. The purpose of the report was to evaluate the site for existing soils conditions and the appropriateness of the site for single-familydevelopment. Potential for liquefaction was low due to the depth of the potentially liquefiable soils and the thickness of non-liquefiable materials above those materials. The report also analyzed for the possibility of other seismic events such as ground rupture, ground shaking, lurching, densification, lateral spreading, expansive soils, load induced settlement, existing fills, fill thickness, and flooding. The report concluded that the site is suitable for the propose development provided the recommendations of the report are incorporated into the design considerations, project plans and specifications. Buildings constructed on the site shall be appropriately reinforced as recommended by a structural engineer in accordance with the most current UBC. Compliance with the recommendations contained in the report should be required as a condition of approval of the subdivision. Soils and/or geotechnical reports may be required in conjunction with the Building Permit application for the project. All new construction will be required to comply with to the provisions of the most current Uniform Ahna Plaza - 3445 Alma Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 17 b) Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. Therefore, no geological or seismic impacts are expected. During site grading and construction of the new building foundations, there is potential for minor erosion, changes in topography, and unstable soil conditions. Although the potential for erosion is less than significant due to the genre slope of the project site, the applicant will be required to comply with the City’s best management practices, which include the action items noted in both the City’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Rules and Regulations and the Santa Clara Countywide Stormwater Management Plan. These actions will help to control erosion, general site maintenance, proper disposal of demolition waste, and contaminated soil and groundwater testing. The document also provides general contractors, subcontractors and applicants with a list of agencies to contact in the event of a spill, suspicion of contaminated soil or groundwater, and a list of waste water treatment authorities and pollution control agencies as well as recycle and disposal services. A final grading and drainage plan for the project is subject to the approval of the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The application of standard grading drainage, and erosion control measures as a part of the approved grading and drainage plan is expected to avoid any grading-related impacts. e)The project will not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Mitigation Measures:None required VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a-c)The proposed project will not involve the handling, transportation, use, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. d)The project site is not identified by either the California Environmental Protection Agency or the Califomia State Water Resources Control Board as a hazardous materials site. e-f)The project site is located approximately three miles to the southeast of the Palo Alto Airport. The additional public activity associated with the intensified use of the site is not expected to pose airport-related safety hazards. g)The proposed project will not interfere with either emergency response or evacuation. h)The project site is not located in a designated fire hazard area. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: No Impact None VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality a,c-f) The existing retail/grocery development has an approximate impermeable site coverage of 95%. The proposed project will have an approximate impermeable site coverage of 62%, including the mixed-use building and residential areas. This means that there will be less storm water runoff and more ground absorption of surface waters with the implementation of the proposed project. Most recharge to the Santa Clara Valley aquifers occur south of Interstate 280 in the sandier, upland portion of the watershed. Therefore, the increased ground absorption of the proposed development would not significantly alter groundwater recharge either positively or adversely. Also, there are no wetlands or established drainage channels on the project site. As a standard condition of approval, the project site will be required to drain to the existing street storm drains and not across adjacent property lines. Standard conditions of architectural review approval would require the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance Ahna Plaza - 3445 Alma Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 18 with the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is also required to be submitted in conjunction with building permit plans to address potential water quality impacts. Additional soils testing would be conducted to confirm the adequacy of the site to accommodate storm water runoff, and BMPs shall be in place for the grading plan that will be appropriate for the types of soils to accommodate as much storm water runoff as possible. The project site is not located in an area of groundwater recharge, and will not deplete groundwater supplies. g-i) The project site is not located in a 100-year flood hazard area and would not impede or redirect flood flows. j) The project site is not in an area that is subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than Significant None IX. Land Use and Planning a-c) The project site is designated as Neighborhood Commercial in the PaIo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan (the General Plan). The existing and the proposed development are consistent with this land use designation, which includes "... shopping centers with off-street parking or a cluster of street front stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. Examples include Alma Plaza, Charleston Center, Edgewood Center and Midtown. Typical uses include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barbershops, restaurants, self-service laundries, dry cleaners and hardware stores. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may also be located in this category. Non-residential floor area ratios will range up to 0.4." Zoning. The zoning district for the project site is (and has been since 1951) Planned Community (PC). As part of the application review process, the City will approve the types of uses that are appropriate now, 51 years after the initial determination of which uses were appropriate for the site. Some of the currently allowed uses in PC-1362 may not be consistent with the above-listed Comprehensive Plan goals, such as: residential care homes, lodging, residential uses, ambulance services, churches and religious institutions, convalescent facilities, drive-in services, mortuaries, private clubs, lodges, fraternal organizations, private educational facilities, temporary parking facilities, commercial recreation, or outdoor recreation services. The applicant’s proposed use and conditional uses for the new PC district are the uses described in PAMC Chapter 18.16 applicable to the Midtown and Charleston Shopping Centers. The PC district does not specify some development regulations such as setbacks, but rather allows for the City to recommend, as appropriate, specific regulations to be applied to a specific PC site. However, Section 18.68.150 of the Zoning Code, PC districts special requirements, does set forth certain minimum and maximum development regulations for project site abutting or having any portion located within 150 feet of any RE, R-l, R-2, RM, or any PC district permitting single-family development or multiple family development, as follows: 1.Height, parking facilities - The maximum height shall be equal to the height established in the most restrictive adjacent zone district. Height, all other uses - The maximum height within 150 feet of any RE, R-l, R-2, RM or applicable PC district shall be 35 feet, provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the maximum height within 150 feet of an RM-4 or RM-5 district shall be 55 feet. Side yard, interior - Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites on any RE, R-l, R-2, RM or applicable PC Ahna Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 19 district, a minimum interior yard of 10 feet shall be required, and a solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed and maintained along the common site line. Where a use in a PC district where the gross floor area, excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least 60 percent residential, the interior yard shall be at least as restrictive as the interior yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line. The minimum interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen. Yards, other - On any portion of a site in the PC district which is opposite from a site in any RE, R-l, R-2, RM or applicable PC district, and separated therefrom by a street, alley, creek, drainage facility or other open area, a minimum yard of 10 feet shall be required. Where a use in a PC district where the gross floor area, excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least 60 prevent residential, the minimum yard requirement shall be at least as restrictive as the yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district opposite such siteline. The minimum yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding areas required for access to the site. Daylight Plane - Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-l, R-2, RM or any residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of 3.0 meters (ten feet) at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of one meter for each two meters of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district, ff the residential daylight plane, as allowed in this section, is selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential district shall be imposed. The applicant’s submitted Development Program Statement and proposed site plans sets forth specific regulations to be applied in the proposed zone change regulations, in addition to the above listed standard regulations for PC zones, as follows: Table 1, below, summarizes the proposed project’s compliance with the PC regulations applicable to all PC districts, as well as other sections of the Zoning Code and the applicant’s proposed regulations: Zoning Zoning Standard Proposed Project In Category Compliance? For all PC zones (section 18.68.150) Height,Maximum height = the height established No parking Structuresparkingin the most restrictive adjacent zone proposed,n/a facilities district Height, general Interior Yard 35 feet maximum 10 feet minimum, plus a solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height 33 feet to highest point of the mixed use building and 35 feet maximum height of the single family units 4 feet to 17 feet Yes No, would require modification or consideration of a DEE Ahna Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & h~itial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 20 Zoning Category Daylight Plane !Zoning Standard Beginning at 10 feet above the interior or rear property line and at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of one meter for each two meters of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. Proposed Project To be determined through the Architectural Review Board process In Compliance? To be determined through the Architectural Review Board process For the commercial portion of the project (CN regulations, except as proposed for the new PC zone - highlighted) Site Area No requirement is established 183,546 square-feet n/a Site Width No requirement is established Varies n/a Site Depth No requirement is established Varies rda Front 0 to 10 feet minimum to create an 8’-12’0 feet YesYard*effective sidewalk width Rear Yard No requirement is established Varies Yes Floor Area Maximum FAR for mixed use shall be 0.9:1, with 0.5:1 for the residential uses and 0.4:1 for the commercial uses FAR of 0.67:1 for the mixed uses, including 0.13:1 for the commercial uses, 0.07 : 1 for the BMR residential uses, and .47:1 for the single family homes Yes Site 50% maximum = 91,773 s.f. 63,805 s.f. = 35% YesCoverage Height 32 feet to highest point of the mixed use building and maximum 35 feet height of the single family units 35 feet maximum Yes, complies with regular PC standard Other. The site is currently developed with a vacant retail commercial center. The Land Use and Circulation Map in the Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan does not identify any land at or near the project site for agricultural uses. Because the project site is in an intensely developed area and not near agricultural land, the proposed project would not affect agricultural resources or operations. The closest Williamson Act lands are 10 acres owned by Stanford University, south of the CalTrain tracks, west of the Palo Alto multi-modal transit center at University Avenue. The project site is over a mile away and would not encroach or interfere with activities at this Williamson Act property. Also, the City does not have any other environmental plans or policies that would affect the project site. The project would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the established single- family and multiple-family neighborhood, because the existing retail/grocery center has been on this site since the early 1950s. The proposed project is a similar retail center in a similar configuration and the proposed project does not expand the boundaries of the site. Ahna Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & h~itial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 21 X. Mineral Resources a-b)The project site is not located in a designated mineral resource recovery site. No impacts to mineral resources are expected. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: No Impact None required XI. Noise a-d) Noise sensitive receptors are those areas that are more sensitive to ambient noise levels than other areas. The proposed project, with 53 residential units, would be considered a sensitive receptor. The two significant sources of noise are vehicle traffic from roadways (primarily arterial roads) and railroad operations. Other sources of noise include the daily activities that take place in the area. The City Noise Element of the Comprehensive Plan and California State Title 24 standards specify a limit of 60 dBA DNL (Average day-night level, also call Ldn) for exterior residential uses and 45 dBA DNL for interior living spaces. The 60 dBA DNL for the City noise element is a guideline with the understanding that a 60 dBA DNL is a goal that cannot be reached in all residential areas. The California Building Code requires that mechanical ventilation of air conditioning be provided for every room exposed to this sound level (60 dBA). The proposed project site is exposed to noise levels of 70 dBA DNL based on the Comprehensive Plan Noise Exposure Contour Map. These ambient conditions include noise from nearby land uses, traffic noise from Alma Street and rail noise from Union Pacific Railroad/Cal Train line. According to a noise assessment study prepared by Charles M. Salter Associated, Inc. in January 2007 the existing noise environment on-site is due primarily to vehicular traffic and the CalTrain line. The noise study identified noise levels from72 dB (auto traffic noise) to 74 dB (train noise). Noise levels indicate that building design measures are required to reduce noise level exposure for the project residents. Noise: Significance Criteria The Comprehensive Plan defines severe noise levels that would cause a significant impact. According to these criteria, the project would have a significant noise impact if it would result in exposure of people to short term construction noise and long-term severe noise levels. A "severe" noise impact is determined under Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy N-39, which describes the application of noise and land use compatibility guidelines tO residential developments: Policy N-39: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in the table "Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment" to determine compatibility. ~ The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an L,~ of 60 dB. This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 Ldn is a guideline, which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraint of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g. backyards in single family housing developments and recreational areas in multiple family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close as the standard as feasible through project design. The indoor noise level as required by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards must not exceed and L~ of 45 dB in multiple family dwellings. This indoor criterion shall also apply to new single family homes in Palo Alto. Ahna Plaza - 3445 Alma Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & h~itial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 22 Interior noise levels in new single family and multiple family residential units exposed to an exterior Lan of 60 dB or greater should be limited to a maximum instantaneous noise level of 50 dBin the bedrooms. Maximum instantaneous noise levels in other rooms should not exceed 55 dB. Noise exposure can be determined based on the noise contour map included in this plan, or more detailed noise measurements, if appropriate. Sound levels of greater than 60 dBA could be generated on all four sides of the mixed use building and the residential area of the site at any time during the day from vehicle traffic or operations associated with the CalTrain railroad. This is a potentially significant impact. As noted in the significance criteria above, the outdoor noise standard is generally an Lan (average 24-hour noise level) of 60 dB. However, the City recognizes in some areas providing an Ldn of 60 dB or lower is not feasible. An example of this area would be adjacent to CalTrain. The proposed project has a building wall facing the CalTrain facing which would be exposed to an Ldn of 70. The mixed use building would provide some shielding of sound impacts for the outdoor lawn area. The noise study estimates that the DNL would be below 60 and 65 for this lawn area. The noise study estimates that the DNL would be below 60 and 65 for the yards adjacent to the single family homes. The standard requires interior noise levels be maintained at an Lon of 45 dB or less. Further, if the exterior noise level is greater than 60 dB, then maximum instantaneous noise levels generated by repetitive, commonly occurring events should be maintained at 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other rooms. The study conducted by Charles M. Salter Associates recommended that windows in residential units have a minimum STC (sound transmission class) rating of 38 for housing units with direct line of site to Alma Street and 28-36 STC for the remainder residential units. Measures designed to minimize the noise impacts will be designed into the project. For example, the noise assessment recommends Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings for exterior windows and along the CalTrain tracks to meet the State Building Code Requirements. The project would include a minimum of STC 50-rated exterior walls facing CalTrain and bedroom windows would have a STC 45 rating. Project related traffic would not cause a noticeable increase in noise on any public streets. However, the demolition of existing structures and construction of the project would temporarily increase current noise levels in the vicinity of the site. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation, removal of pavement, and construction vehicles. Construction hours would be limited to Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., as per City requirements. All construction truck traffic shall conform to the City of Palo Alto Trucks and Traffic Ordinance (10.48) that details city truck routes. The noise study considered future truck delivery activity noise levels at the southeast property line adjacent to the existing single-story office building as DNL 61 dB and at the southeast property line adjacent to the existing 2-story house as DNL 59 dB. At the proposed BMR units, there would be DNL 55 dB. For the BMR units, the City and state levels will not be exceeded, but to meet the project’ s single-event noise criteria, sound-rated windows will be necessary. Residual Impact:Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the noise related impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure: MM #2 To mitigate noise impacts, the project shall include design features to reduce the maximum indoor noise level to as close as the 45dB standard as feasible through project design. To achieve this, STC rated exterior walls facing Alma Street and perpendicular to Alma Street shall have an STC rating of at least 50. Exterior glazing for bedrooms facing CalTrain shall have a minimum STC rating of 45. Ahna Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Stady/Environmental Assessment Page 23 XII. Population and Housing a-c). Population in Palo Alto’s sphere of influence in 1996, according to Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan was 58,000 people. This is projected by the City’s Comprehensive Plan to increase to 62,880 by 2010. The project, by adding to the housing stock by 53 units, would cumulatively contribute to population in the area. The average household size in Palo Alto is 2.24 persons, which would mean the project could generate a total of 119 people. The projects cumulative impacts for the purposes of CEQA are also considered to be less than significant, as the impact from the project alone is not "considerable", and is di minimus, as environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the project is implemented (as per CEQA Guidelines § 15355 and § 15064). This incremental increase in population generated by the proposed project would not be considered a significant impact. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measure: Less than Significant None required XIII. Public Services a)Fire The proposed project would not impact fire service to the area and the site is not located in a high fire hazard area. The conditions of approval for the project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures. The proposed project would result in new buildings that would be equipped with modem fire-notification equipment. Implementation of these fire requirements will reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels. Police The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The facility would not by itself result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities. Schools Based on the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) student generation rates of 0.9 students per medium/large single family detached dwelling unit and 0.7 per Below Market Rate rental unit, the project would generate 45 school-age children. Currently, enrollment in the PAUSD is approaching capacity. School overcrowding is not considered a significant effect however, under CEQA [Goleta Union School District v. The regents of the University of California (35 Cal.App.4m 1121 (1995)]. Rather, the increase in students from a project is only significant if such an increase would create significant environmental effects, such as impacts from the construction of a new school. Due to demand, the PAUSD is examining options to increase capacity, including re-opening currently closed schools. However, the project’s cumulative impacts for the purposes of CEQA are considered to be less than significant, as the impact from the project alone is not considerable. It should be noted that the PAUSD has implemented a school impact fee. Parks Impact fees to address impacts on parks were adopted by the Palo Alto City Council in March of 2002. Prior to receiving a building permit, the project applicant will be required to pay a one-time development impact fee for parks. The fee will be used to offset impacts on park facilities as a result of this project. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact. Other Public Facilities Impact fees to address impacts on community centers and libraries were adopted by the Palo Alto City Council in March of 2002. Prior to receiving a building permit, the project applicant will be required to pay a one time development impact fee for community centers and libraries. The fee will be used to offset impacts on community centers and library facilities as a result of this project. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact. Ahna Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Stady/Environmental Assessment Page 24 Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than Significant None required XIV. Recreation a,b)Palo Alto follows the National Recreation and Park Association Standards as guidelines for determining parkland needs. This requires two acres of parkland for each 1,000 people. The project could generate 119 additional persons, resulting in a demand of 0.12 acres of parkland. As a public benefit, the project proposes a .15 acre park area with a perpetual public easement. Impact fees to address impacts on parks were adopted by the Palo Alto City Council in March of 2002. Prior to receiving a building permit, the project applicant will be required to pay a one-time development impact fee for parks. The fee will be used to offset impacts on park facilities as a result of this project. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact. The project would not be subject to the Parkland Dedication ordinance, in that the Tentative Map requested was submitted prior to the ordinance taking affect. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Les than Significant None required XV.Transportation/Traffic a,b) The project site currently has access to Alma Street via two driveways - one full-access driveway and one limited-access driveway (inbound right-turns only), as well as a long-standing easement agreement with the Stanford Villa Apartments through their south alley. The driveways and the alley are unsignalized. The mixed use building and 36 of the 39 proposed single family units will have access via the three driveways on Alma Street: (1) The middle driveway is a full-access driveway with a left-turn inbound lane and an acceleration lane for outbound left-turn traffic provided on Alma Street; (2) The northern (western) driveway is fight turn in and out only an connects to the existing Stanford Villa Apartments’ alley; and (3) The southern (eastern) driveway is an exit-only, right-turn 0nly driveway. The proposed three single-family units on Ramona Street would have vehicular access only from Ramona Street. The project includes modifications to the frontage road and the south driveway to the project site to help eliminate vehicles from the site incorrectly proceeding southbound onto the frontage road. As part of the application for the proposed project, the applicant provided a Traffic Analysis that was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. Inc. (Attachment D of this document). Project Trip Estimates. The Traffic Analysis’ peak hour vehicle trips generated by the proposed project were estimated to be 15 fewer AM peak-hour trips and 151 fewer PM peak-hour trips than reoccupany of the retail buildings. The trip generation of the reoccupany of the existing vacant 45,600 square foot retail space was calculated using data in the Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation," seventh edition for supermarket and specialty retail trip generation rates. The proposed residential development (39 single-family units, 14 Below Market Rate apartments, and 23,300 square feet of commercial use is estimated to general approximately 1,371 fewer daily trips. The Traffic Impact Analysis evaluated intersection operations at seven study intersections with level of service calculations during the weekday morning and evening peak periods for existing, background, proposed project and Cumulative (2015), No Project Conditions, and Cumulative (2015) Plus Project Conditions. The Traffic Impact Analysis concludes that all intersections are projected to operate at improved levels of service under the propose project compared to the existing, background, Cumulative (2015), No Project Conditions, and Cumulative (2015) Plus Project Conditions. The City Fire Department has accepted the proposed turning radii and the truck routes are proposed as they exist today. These frontage road vehicles would need to yield to Alma Street traffic. The project includes modifications Ahna Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & h~itial Stady/Environmental Assessment Page 25 to the frontage road and the south driveway to the project site to help eliminate vehicles from the site incorrectly proceeding southbound onto the frontage road. Circulation. The project’s three access points, include one full-access driveway and one limited-access driveway (inbound right-turns only), as well as a long-standing easement agreement with the Stanford Villa Apartments through their south alley. This driveway configuration will serve the estimated project traffic volumes at acceptable levels of service. The Stanford Villa Apartments’ alley between the project site and the apartments to the north will provide access to the residential units towards the rear of the site. Service vehicles and delivery trucks will access the loading dock at the south (east) corner of the mixed-use building by entering via a right turn from northbound Alma Street, traveling behind the mixed-use building, and exiting from the southern right-turn only driveway. A small grid pattern is proposed for the interior roadways. Parking. The project is proposing a parking supply that meets Zoning Code standards with one parking space for every 200 gross square feet of intensive retail area (1/200), one space for every 250 gross square feet of neighborhood commercial space (1/25), and one space for every 1,000 gross square feet of storage space (1/1000), two spaces per 2- bedroom BMR unit and 1.5 spaces per 1-bedroom BMR unit, and two spaces per single-family dwelling with guest parking at one space per three single-family dwellings. This rate would require the proposed project to provide 209 parking spaces. The project also includes construction of the reconfiguration of the frontage road (along Alma Street, between East Meadow and the project site) which results in a net increase of four parking spaces along the frontage road for a total of 215 spaces. City research associated with previous proposals for redevelopment of this site, have revealed that the project site does not have any recorded or other existing reciprocal parking agreement with either the Stanford Villa Apartment site or the adjacent office site, Therefore, while the apartment residents and the office tenants have been utilizing the existing parking spaces on the projects site, the applicant does not have any obligation to provide parking for the apartment residents or the office tenants. With or without an approved project, the applicant may eliminate this casual parking by the apartment residents and the office tenants. The applicant has stated that some retail parking spaces would be available to Stanford Villa Apartments tenants during hours when the retail building is closed for business. Pedestrian & Bicyclist Safety. Pedestrian and bicycle access is provided by connections to Alma Street and Ramona Street. The proposed site plan includes sidewalk along internal alleys to provide pedestrian access to the single-family residential units. The proposed pedestrian walkway along the southern perimeter of the site connecting Alma Street to Ramona Street will include a fence at the property line, precluding public access from Emerson Street. The construction hours of the project will be as allowed by City ordinance. Additionally, prior to the issuance of building permits, the construction documents must be approved with a construction staging and circulation plan. Construction vehicles will not be permitted to circulate or park on the nearby residential streets c) The project will not result in a change to air traffic patterns. The proposed project would not affect future light rail, water or airborne traffic. d,e)The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Department and Transportation Division and does not contain design features that will substantially increase hazards or result in inadequate emergency access. The proposed project would not create hazards for motorists or pedestrians, obstruct emergency access, or conflict with policies supporting alternative transportation. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measure: Less than Significant None required XVI. Utilities and Service Systems Alma Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 26 a-g) The proposed project will increase the demand on existing utility and service systems. The project would require new and expanded electrical, communication, water, and sewer connections. However, the improvements would be considered minor improvements to the existing systems, and is therefore a less than significant impact. The project could create minor discharges of pollutants in the form of automobile and landscaping maintenance. However, conditions of approval associated with the project would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. The project would also require new solid waste disposal services from the Palo Alto Sanitation company, but would not require new equipment or substantial alteration to present service and is therefore a less than significant impact. The project would not be expected to greatly increase water demand. No new sources of water would need to be found. The City uses an average of 13 million gallons a day (mgd) in 1996 and the projected water demand in the City is not expected to exceed 13.7 mgd through 2007. Currently, the City has a guaranteed allocation of 17 mgd through the year 2006 from the Hetch Hetchy water system. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than Significant None required Ahna Plaza - 3445 Ahna Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & htitial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 27 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources. The uses are appropriate for the site and the development would not result in an adverse visual impact. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts, subject to the implementation of mitigation measures 1-8. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS INITIAL EVALUATION/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED FEBRUARY 16, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS ALMA PLAZA (06PLN-000206), PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Applicant’s Signature Date Summary of Mitigation Measures MM#1 Incorporate Ordinance size coast live oaks #16 and #20 and valley oak #21 into the site design and implement tree protection measures in the design phase and protection requirements consistent with the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.00 and HortScience tree preservation guidelines. A security guarantee agreement shall be prepared for the ordinance trees to be protected to ensure survival and replacement conditions exist. Protect ordinance size coast live oak #42 through employment of the tree preservation measures in the design phase and protection requirements consistent with the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.00 and HortScience tree preservation guidelines. MM #2 To mitigate noise impacts, the project shall include design features to reduce the maximum indoor noise level to as close as the 45dB standard as feasible through project design. To achieve this, STC rated exterior walls facing Alma Street and perpendicular to Alma Street shall have an STC rating of at least 50. Exterior glazing for bedrooms facing CalTrain shall have a minimum STC rating of 45. Ahna Plaza - 3445 Alma Street Mitigated Negative Declaration & h~itial Study/Environmental Assessment Page 28 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANL-~ Charles NI Salter Associates Inc AudioA ,~ ual System Desire 325 So,t ~ Su,te !60 Jal,fomia fib a Tel 408 295 4£44 Fax: 408 29! 40R-Q ,fo@c, asalte m Cha~te,~ M Salte~ PE David P Sch\ ~nd A Illony Nash Eva Duesler homas Schlnalel Kerlnelb Grav~,P[ Robert P AIv~rado John C re’ aq PE Duraqd R Beg, Crlstlna Mlyal Randy D ~eter K ¯ qdrev, L Sla~ ~ imothy G Nrow Jof- CI Ikey L:lhal Sslte~ Heal ~er Migui Alison Nt liSOI 11 January 2007 John McNellis McNellis Partners, LLC 419 Waverly Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Email: j ohn@mcnellis.com Subject:Alma Plaza Mixed Use - Environmental Noise Assessment CSA Project No: 07-0009 Dear Jobm: This letter summarizes an environmental noise assessment for the mixed use portion of the Alma Plaza site, located at 3445 Alma Street in Palo Alto, California. We understand the project includes 14 housing units above retail and a subterranean garage. The purpose of this assessment is to quantify the noise environment and ground-borne vibration at the site, compare it with applicable City and State goals, and identify mitigation measures, as needed. GOALS IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Goal I - Interior Noise Level of Ldn 45 dB " The California Building Code (Title 24, Part 21 Appendix Chapter 1208A) requires that multi-family housing projects exposed to an Ldn1 greater than 60 dB have the interior noise level mitigated to Ldn 45 dB in habitable rooms. If windows must be closed to meet this requirement, then "the design for the structure must also specify ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment." Impact 1 Noise from automobile traffic on Alma Street and rail traffic on the tracks opposite Alma Street control the Ldn at the site. On the 29th and 30tu of March of 2005 we conducted two 24-hour measurements and two 15-minute spot measurelnents at the site. Figure 1 shows the measurement locations and measured levels. The long- term monitor near Alma Street shows an existing Ldn of 76 dB. The monitors identified loud events, which we matched with the CalTrain schedule to estinaate the separate contributions of trains and automobile traffic to the overall Ldn: 1 Ldn - Day-Night Average Sound Level (Laa) is the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound exposure level for a 24-hour period with a 10 dB adjustment added to sound levels occurring during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.rn.) John McNellis 11 January 2007 Page 2 Existing Noise Levels Trains Ldn 74 dB Automobile Traffic Ldn 71 dB Combined Ldn 76 dB The Fehr and Peers Traffic study dated December 2006 indicates that 2015 PM peak traffic volumes on Alma Street, with the project, are expected to be approximately 25% higher than existing. This results in a 1 dB increase in the contribution of automobile traffic noise to the Ldn. Train noise levels are not expected to increase significantly. Therefore the calculated fi~ture noise level at the setback of the proposed mixed use building is as follows: Estimated Future Noise Levels (2015) Trains Ldn 74 dB Automobile Traffic Ldn 72 dB Combined Ldn 77 dB Sound levels will be lower on the back side of the building, facing the interior of the site, and on the sides perpendicular to Alma Street Figure 2, attached shows estimated noise levels on the four sides of the building. With standard non-sound-rated windows, the estimated interior noise level would be approximately Ldn 52 dB. This exceeds the upper limit of Ldn 45 in the Building Code. Therefore, mitigation is required. Mitigation 1 Sound rated windows and patio doors are requiredto reduce interior noise levels to Ldn 45 dB. Appendix A includes a table showing window sound insulation ratings intended to meet both the average noise level requirement, and the maximum instantaneous noise level goals discussed below. Mitigation 2 Because estimated noise levels exceed Ldn 60 on all four sides of the building, windows must be closed to maintain Ldn 45 dB or lower, and an alternate method of ventilating the units is required. Options include ducting air from outside to the heat pumps or fan!coil units serving the dwelling units, or providing a small dedicated ventilation fan operated by the resident. The ventilation system must not compromise outdoor-to-indoor sound insulation. Goal 2 - Noise Levels at Outdoor Use Areas Policy N-39 of the Palo Alto General Plan includes the following goal: The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB. This is to be applied prilnarily where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single family housing developments and recreational areas in multiple housing projects). Charles ~ Salter Asseci~tes 325South First Street, Suite 160 Sac Jose C2alifomia95~13 Tel 408.z95.4944 Fax 4118.295.4949 John McNellis 11 January 2007 Page 3 Impact 2 The mixed use portion of the site does not include any significant recreational outdoor use space. Therefore, this goal is not applicable and there is no impact. It is addressed for the single family housing portion of the project in a separate report. Goal 3 - Maximum Instantaneous Interior Noise Levels Policy N-39 of the Palo Alto General Plan includes the following goal: Interior noise levels in new single family and multiple family residential units exposed to an exterior Ldn of 60 or greater should be limited to a maximum instantaneous noise level of 50 dB in bedrooms. Maximurn instantaneous noise levels in other rooms should not exceed 55 dB. Impact 3 Typical maximum noise levels from trains passing the site are 90 dB. Some trains are louder than this, but 90 dB represents the 90th percentile of the loud events identified during the measurement period. With standard dual pane windows, interior maximum noise levels from trains would be on the order of 65 dB, which exceeds the goals of 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other living spaces. Therefore, mitigation is required. Mitigation 3 Sound rated windows, doors, and walls are necessary to reduce typical maximum instantaneous noise levels to 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other living spaces. Appendix A includes a table showing window sound insulation ratings intended to meet both the average noise level requirement, discussed above, and the maximum instantaneous noise level goals. Fixed windows with high sound insulation ratings may be required at bedrooms, and patio doors currently shown as sliders may have to be changed to swinging doors with perimeter seals and high sound insulation ratings in order to meet the goal. o Exterior walls lacing Alma Street and perpendicular to Alma Street should be staggered or double stud assemblies, or should incorporate resilient chmmels or clips (e.g., RSIC clips by Pac International or Iso-Max clips by Kinetics). The ratio of window to wall area, and the size and aspect ratio of roo~ns affect window sound insulation ratings. An acoustical consultant should be involved during the design phase to help select window sound insulation ratings and exterior wall assemblies based on the final plans and elevations, and on laboratory test reports for the windows being considered. Goal 4 - Project’s Impact on the Noise Environment Policy N-41 of the Palo Alto General Plan states that a project should be considered to cause a significant degradation of the noise environment if it causes an increase of 3 dB or more in an area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB. Sailer Associates 325South FirsiStreel Su~te~60 Sac J(~se Calirornis95i43 Tel 4~)8.Z8,<;4944 Fax 408.ZU’.494~ John McNellis 11 January 2007 Page 4 Impact 4 We understand that the retail tenants in the project are likely to include a specialty grocery store, and perhaps a coffee house. Noise sources associated with the mixed use project include thefollowing: .Delivery Activity (Trucks) ¯Mechanical Equipment ¯Traffic ¯Construction 1. Delivery Activity Although the proposed delivery schedule is not yet known in detail, we understand that it is likely to involve two 40-foot trucks per week and up to ten medium trucks each day. Deliveries will occur during operating hours, which are expected to be no more than 7 am to 10 pm. Table 1 summarizes noise levels of various truck loading activities and the duration of each event. The noise levels and durations shown are taken from recordings made at a San Jose Lucky store2. Table 1: Typical Ec~uipment Noise Levels and Duration !A-Weighted -¯1 Distance,Duration,~ / Noise Level, in .,Noise aource |dB In Feet in Minutes Trailer Truck 67 60 1 Truck Refrigerator 73 50 2 Back-up Beeper 96 4 1/2 " Based on the noise level data in Table 1 and the delivery information described above, we calculated the Ldn that truck activity will generate at various points along the southeast property line. We used the noise level generated by trailer trucks for the medium trucks. Table 2 summarizes estimated the contribution of loading activity to the future Ldn at two locations along the nearest property line. Table 2: Future Truck-Generated Noise Levels Location Southeast Property Line adjacent to an Existing Single Story Office Building Southeast Property Line Adjacent to an Existing 2-Story House ILdn in dB 59 Measurements made between 1 and 3 May 1997 for noise study related to expansion of Meridian Avenue Lucky store. Charles |~tl Salter Ass(~cia~es 325South FirstStreel Sude~6( San Jose ,Ja.,~r)r~,la9! ~3 Tel 408.295.4944 Fax 4~18.295.4949 John McNellis 11 January 2007 Page 5 Mechanical Equipment Mechanical equipment for grocery store refrigeration, and for heating and cooling residential units, has not yet been selected. However, we understand that the intent is to locate all equipment on the roof. We have assumed that equipment will include one small condensing unit for each dwelling unit, and three larger condensing units for the retail tenants. Based on equipment selections for similar projects, the large condensing units are assumed to have sound ratings of 8.4 bels (approximately equivalent to 84 decibels), and the smaller units are assumed to have ratings of 8.0 bels. The roof line creates a well along the long axis of the building, where mechanical equipment will be located. There will be no direct line of sight from the office building and residence along the southeast property line to the mechanical equipment well. The calculated sound pressure level of rooftop HVAC equipment is 49 dB at the office building and 48 dB at the nearest residential property line. Table 3 summarizes the estimated contribution of HVAC equipment to the Ldn at two locations along the nearest property lille, with the following (conservative) assumptions: o Residential condensing units operate 50% of the time, day and night The retail condensing units operate continuously, day and night. Table 3: Future HVAC Noise Levels Location Southeast Property Line adjacent to an Existing Single Story Office Building Southeast Property Line Adjacent to an Existing 2-Story House Ldn in dB 55 54 Per the Fehr & Peers traffic report, the project will add less than 5% to the traffic volume on Alma Street, and will therefore add less than 1 dB to the noise level generated by traffic. Combined bnpact of New Noise Sources Table 4 shows the combined effect of new noise sources associated with the project on property line noise levels. Table 4: Future HVAC Noise Levels Location Southeast Property Line adjacent to an Existing Single Story Office Building Southeast Property Line Adjacent to an Existing 2-Story House EXISTING COMBINED NEff ESTIMATED LDN SOURCES LDN FUTURE LDN 73 62 73 70 60 70 Salter Associates 325 South First Streei Sutte 6~} Sal ~,~se ;al+,mlag!,113 Tel 408.Z95 4944 Fax 408.z95.4949 Jotm McNellis 11 January 2007 Page 6 Construction The project site is adjacent to residential areas on the north, east, and south. Construction of the project will result in elevated short-term noise levels at these existing residentM areas. Mitigation 4 Operation of the proposed mixed use project increases the existing Ldn by less than 1 dB, which is less than significant. As required by the City of Palo Alto, construction noise impact should be limited by observing the allowed construction times of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or holidays. Additional mitigation measures include: locating noisy stationary equipment (e.g., generators and compressors) away from the most sensitive adjacent areas, and requiring that all construction equipment be in good working order and that lnuffiers are inspected for proper functioning. Goal 5 - Noise Ordinance Section 9.10.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code states that no machine may produce "a noise level more than six dB above the local anabient at any point outside of the property plane." Impact 5 As noted above, mechanical equipment associated with the project generates noise levels of 49 dB at the nearest adjacent commercial property line, and 48 dB at the nearest residential property line. The local ambient noise level at the site ranges from 40 dB between 1:30 and 3:15 am to 68 dB at the noisiest part of the morning commute. Estimated property line noise levels from mechanical equipment comply with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, except for a short period during the middle of the night. Mitigation 5 Noise levels from rooftop mechanical equipment should be reduced by approximately 3 dB from the estimated levels during the late night/early morning hours. This can be accomplished in one of several ways: 1. Equipment selection - Select equipment that operates more quietly that the 8.4 bels and 8.0 bels a}sumed for this analysis. Install sound absorbing finishes on the mechanical well walls. Sound absorbing materials suitable for outdoor use include Pyrok Acoustement 40 and Kinetics KNP panels, which can also serve as visual/acoustical screens. 3.Limit hours of operation so that equipment either does not operate, or operates at a lower speed during the quietest hours of the night. Associates 325 South First Street Suite ,6(’ Sa~ J~se Cali~,~rnia95113 Tel 408.295.4944 Fax 41)82954949 John McNellis 11 January 2007 Page 7 Noise from mechanical equipment should be evaluated in greater detail during the design phase after heating and cooling loads have been determined and equipment is being selected and specified. Goal 6 - Ground- Borne Vibration from Trains We are not aware that the City of Palo Alto has specific criteria for ground-borne vibration. However, Transit Noise and Vibration impact Assessment, published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in April of 1995, provides guidelines for ground-borne vibration levels due to rail lines adjacent to housing. For new residential projects near existing rail lines, the ground-borne vibration guidelines are as follows3: 1. Frequent Events (more than 70 per day) - 72 VdB4 2. Infrequent Events (fewer than 70 per day) - 80 VdB For reference, the threshold of vibration perception in humans is approximately 65 to 70 VdB. Itnpact 6 On 16 May 2005, we measured train vibration levels at the setback of the proposed mixed use building. Seven Caltrain trains passed the site during the measurement period: four northbound and three southbound. Vibration levels from the trains ranged between 60 and 65 VdB: near or below the threshold of perception. Levels from northbound trains were about 3 VdB higher than those from southbound trains. During the weekdays, Caltrain operates 88 trains (44 in each direction) between 5:00 a.m. and 1:15 a.m. past the Alma Plaza site. Thus the applicable goal for these events is 72 VdB. Freight trains also use these tracks on a regular but unscheduled basis. No freight trains passed the site during our measurement period. However, based on previous measurements at other sites, we expect vibration from freight trains to be 5 to 10 VdB higher than Caltrain. Resulting vibration levels may occasionally exceed 72 VdB, but are expected to be lower than the 80 VdB guideline for infrequent events. Mitigation 6 Measurements indicate that ground-borne vibration levels at the site are below the guideline thresholds in the FTA document. However, experience has shown that lightweight wood or metal structures with joist spans exceeding 15 feet can amplify ground-borne vibration by as much as 10 VdB. Resulting vibration levels on the upper floors could be perceptible. Therefore, consider using reasonable measures to stiffen the structure (e.g. use slightly deeper joists and limit the span of unsupported Charles ~ Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Adnfinistration, Chapter 8: Vibration Impact Criteria, Table 8-1.4 RMS Vibration Velocity Level in VdB relative to 10.6 inches/second. Associates ~zt: South Firsi Streel S~,~te 160 San Jose California 95113 Tel 408.Z95 4944 Fax 498.295.494~ John McNellis 11 January 2007 Page 8 floor joists to a maximum of 15-feet) to reduce amplification of ground-borne vibration in the residences. This concludes our analysis of environmental noise for the mixed use project at the Alma Plaza site in Palo Alto. Please do not hesitate to call if you have questions. Sincerely, ~~.~Sanders Vice President Encl: 325 Sr,,!th Firsl Streel Suite 16(! Sat Jose Cal~fc, rnia. 95113 -tel 408.295.4944 Fax 408.z95 494Y John McNellis 11 January 2007 Page 9 Appendix A Window and Patio Door Sound Insulation Ratings Recommendations for window and patio door sound insulation ratings to meet City and State goals for interior noise are based on our on-site noise measurements and the building plans and elevations dated 24 October 2006. The minimum STC5 ratings are determined by the City’s maximum instantaneous noise level goals (50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other living spaces), rather than by the interior average noise level requirement in the Building Code (Ldn 45 dB). STC ratings for achieving each of the two goals are listed in the table below. The governing ratings are in bold. Minimum Window/Exterior Door STC Ratings Location Dwelling Units Facing Alma Street One-Bedroom Unit on the West Corner Living Room of Two-Bedroom Unit on the North Corner Dwelling Units Facing the Interior of the Site (Northeast) Two-Bedroom Unit on the East Corner 39 Bedroom 39 Living Rm 36 33 28 Bedroom 36 Living Rm 28 Bedroom Living Rm Bedroom Living Rm Bedroom Living Rm Bedroom Living Rm Bedrooms Living Rm Minimum STC Rating to Achieve: Ldn 45 dB I Lm,~ 50 dB/55 dB 50 45 50 42 36 42 36 28 42 28 For reference, construction-grade dual-pane windows typically achieve an STC rating of 28. Final recommendations for window and STC ratings will depend on the actual sizes of rooms, windows, doors, and the design of exterior wall assemblies. s Sound Transmission Class (STC) -- A single-number rating derived from the noise reduction of partitions, windows, and doors. Numerically, STC represents the reduction in the level of sound transmitted through the partition, as measured in a laboratory. Increasing STC values correspond to improved sound insulation. C~arles N~ Salter Associates ~/i5S~,.Jtb FirstStreel Suite !60 San Jose California95113 Tel 408.295.4944 Fax 24-Hour Monitor DNL 76.3 dB Figure 1 - Alma Plaza, Palo Alto - Noise Measurement Locations 29 and 30 March 2005 .COl" PE Salter Associates 30 January 2007 Melissa Holmes Greenbriar Homes Communities, Inc. 43160 Osgood Road Fremont, CA 94539 Email: mholmes@greenbriarhomes.com Subject:Alma Plaza Residential Redevelopment - Preliminary Environmental Noise Study CSA Project No: 07-0010 Dear Melissa: This letter summarizes our enviromnental noise study for the single family portion of the Ahna Plaza project, located at 3445 Ahna Street in Palo Alto, California. We understand that the project includes thirty-nine single-family homes. They are set back at least 150 feet from Alma Street, and a proposed mixed use building separates them, and partially shields them, from the roadway. Railroad tracks used by CalTrain and freight trains are located across Alma Street from the site: approximately 145 feet from the site, and well over 200 feet from the nearest single family home. The purpose of this study is to quantify the noise environment at the site, compare it with applicable City and State standards, and propose mitigation as necessary. PROJECT CRITERIA California Building Code (CBC) The California Building Code (Title 24, Part 2, Appendix Chapter 1208A) requires that multi-family housing projects exposed to an Ldnx greater than 60 dB have the interior noise level mitigated to Ldn 45 dB in habitable rooms. If windows must be closed to meet this requirement, then "the design for the structure must also specify ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment." City of Palo Alto General Plan The Natural Environment chapter of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan establishes exterior noise guidelines for land-use compatibility. The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is Ldn 60 dB. This is to be applied primarily where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single family housing developments and recreational areas in multiple housing projects). The General Plan also includes a goal that single- and multi-family units exposed to an Ldn of 60 dB or i Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) is the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound exposure level for a 24-hour period with a 10 dB adjustment added to sound levels occurring during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Melissa Holmes 30 January 2007 Page 2 greater limit maximum instantaneous noise levels (Lmax) to 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other rooms. Noise Ordinance The City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance limits noise at residential property lines to 6 dB above the local ambient2. Vibration We are not aware that the City of Palo Alto has specific criteria for ground-borne vibration. However, a document entitled "Transit Noise and Vibration hnpact Assessment," published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in April of 1995, provides guidelines for levels of ground-borne vibration due to rail lines adjacent to housing. For new residential projects near existing rail lines, the ground-borne vibration guidelines are as follows3: 1. Frequent Events (more than 70 per day) - 72 VdB4 2. Infrequent Events (fewer than 70 per day) - 80 VdB For reference, the threshold of vibration perception in humans is approximately 65 to 70 VdB. NOISE AND VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT To quantify the existing noise environment, we conducted noise measurements on the 29th and 30th of March 2005. Twenty-four hour noise measurements were made at the edge of Alma Street and at a ten-foot setback from the edge of Ramona Street (at the rear of the property). The primary noise sources at the site are traffic on Alma Street and trains running on the opposite side of Alma Street from the project site. In addition, we measured ground-borne vibration due to trains on 16 May 2005. Traffic Noise Alma Street borders the project site along the west property line. It is a principal arterial for Palo Alto. The existing Ldn at the edge of the roadway is 76 dB. The contribution due to vehicle traffic is Ldn 71 dB. The Fehr and Peers Traffic study dated December 2006 indicates that 2015 PM peak traffic volmnes on Alma Street, with the project, are expected to be approximately 25% higher than existing. This results in a 1 dB increase in the contribution of automobile traffic noise to the Ldn. Ramona Street borders the project site on the east, and is generally lightly traveled by local residents only. The measured Ldn near the edge of Ramona Street is 62 dB. The 2 The City of Palo Alto defines the "Local Ambient" as the "lowest sound level repeating itself cluring a six minute period..."3 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, Chapter 8: Vibration Impact Criteria, Table 8-1.4 RMS Vibration Velocity Level in VdB relative to 10"6 inches/second. Associates 325S,,~thF:~’slSlreel ~,te 6~ Sa, J(,se :a!+.~,,~9.~113 Tel 408.z’-*~4u44Fax 4~)8.z95.4949 Melissa Holmes 30 January 2007 Page 3 street leads to a residential loop, and therefore we have not assumed a future increase in traffic. Train Noise The railroad tracks are located about 145-feet from the Ahna Street edge of the site, and well over 200 feet from the nearest single family homes. There is a grade crossing at East Meadow Drive (approximately 300-feet south of the project site). Southbound commuter trains were observed blowing their horn as they approached the grade crossing, producing an L~nax greater than 90 dB near Alma Street. Horns from northbound trains were also audible at the site. The calculated Ldn due to trains alone is 74 dB at the Alma Street edge of the site. Cumulative Noise Table 1 summarizes existing and estimated future Ldn at the measurement locations. The estimated future Ldn is the basis of recommended mitigation measures. The minimum Ldn at the site is 62 dB. Table 1: Existing and Estimated Future Noise Levels Estimated Location Existing Ldn Future Ldn 35-feet from centerline of 76 dB 77 dBAlma Street 25-feet from centerline of 62 dB 62 dBRamona Street Project Generated Noise Construction - The project site is adjacent to residential areas on the north, east, and south. Construction of the project will result in elevated short-term noise levels at these existing residential areas. Mechanical Equipment - Other than construction noise, potential sources of noise that would impact surrounding neighbors are air-conditioning compressors at the new residences. Measurements conducted earlier this year found the local ambient noise level at the site ranges from 40 dBA during the night to 68 dBA during the day. Therefore, noise levels due to the air-conditioning compressors should not exceed 46 dBA at the nearest residential property line to be in compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Vibration On 16 May 2005, we measured train vibration levels near the edge of the site along Alma Street. Based on the project site plan dated 20 December 2006, the houses are well over 200 feet from the railroad tracks. Seven commuter trains passed the site during the measurement period: four northbound and three southbound. Vibration levels from the trains ranged between 60 and 65 VdB. Melissa Holmes 30 January 2007 Page 4 Levels from northbound trains were about 3 VdB higher than those from southbound trains. During the weekdays, CalTrain operates 88 trains (44 in each direction) between 5:00 a.m. and 1:15 a.m. past the Alma Plaza site. Thus the applicable standard for these events is 72 VdB. Freight trains also use these tracks on a regular but unscheduled basis. No freight trains passed the site during our measurement period. However, based on previous measurements we expect vibration from freight trains to be 5 to 10 VdB higher than CalTrain. Resulting vibration levels may occasionally exceed 72 VdB, but are expected to be lower than the 80 VdB guideline for infrequent events. RECOMMENDATIONS Exterior-to-Interior Noise To provide estimates of window, wall, and door sound insulation ratings needed to meet City and State goals, we used site plan dated 20 December 2006. Since floor plans and elevations of the single family houses have not yet been developed, we have assumed a room size of 10-feet by 10-feet with windows and doors accounting for 35-percent of the fagade area. Based on our analysis, the minimum STC5 ratings for the project are determined by the Lmax goal (50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other living spaces) rather than the interior Ldn goal (45 dB in all living spaces). For reference, both are summarized in Table 2. To achieve the 50 dB/55 dB interior Lmax noise goal, exterior walls of the homes with greatest exposure to train noise may need to incorporate acceptable construction methods for reducing noise intrusion. Window, wall, and door sound insulation ratings should be reviewed and revised during design to reflect actual room and window sizes and locations. Final window sound insulation ratings may be lower than those shown in the table. Table 2: Minimum Window/Exterior Door STC Ratings Minimum STC Rating to Achieve:Location Ldn 45 dB Lmax 50 dB/55 dB Houses with direct line of sight to Alma Street (lots l, 6, 27) Lots 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19- 22, 28-31 Lots 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 16, 23, 24, 32, 33 Lots 17, 18, 25, 26, 32-39 36 33 31 28 Bedrooms - 45 Other Rooms - 39 Bedrooms - 45 Other Rooms - 39 Bedrooms - 39 Other Rooms - 33 Bedrooms - 36 Other Rooms - 30 5 Sound Transmission Class (STC) -- A single-number rating derived from the noise reduction of partitions, windows, and doors. Numerically, STC represents the reduction in the level of sound transmitted through the partition, as measured in a laboratory. Increasing STC values correspond to improved sound insulation. ~ Sa~er Associates i2g S,,*~th Fir:-;~ S:ree S~ ilo ~,~, Sa~ &~se Cal,i,~r~ ~a 95! 13 Tel 408.295 4944 Fax 4kl8 95.494! Melissa Holmes 30 January 2007 Page 5 For reference, construction-grade dual-pane windows typically achieve an STC rating of 28. Final recommendations for window and STC ratings will depend on the actual sizes of rooms, windows, doors, and the design of exterior wall assemblies. The entire project is exposed to an Ldn of 60 dB or greater. Therefore, windows must be closed to achieve an interior Ldn of 45 dB, and an alternative method of supplying ventilation should be provided. Outdoor Use Areas The yards associated with single family homes are located between homes where they are well shielded from traffic and railroad noise. Expected long-term average noise levels in yards adjacent to homes areas are expected to be between Ldn 60 and 65 dB. Although noise in outdoor use areas may exceed the Ldn 60 dB goal in the general plan, they have been located so that they are shielded from traffic and train noise by the houses themselves. Three homes with larger yards have been located along Romona Street, where the long-term average noise level is already near the Ldn 60 dB goal. Project Generated Noise Construction - As required by the City of Palo Alto, construction noise impact should be limited by observing the allowed construction times of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or holidays. Additional mitigation measures include: locating noisy stationary equipment (e.g., generators and compressors) away from the most sensitive adjacent areas, and requiring that all construction equipment be in good working order and that mufflers are inspected for proper functioning. Mechanical Equipment - Select quiet equipment and locate it to minimize its impact on sensitive receivers. If necessary, construct small enclosures or barriers to help contain noise from residential heat pumps or condensers. An acoustical consultant should review mechanical equipment selected for the project to verify compliance with Noise Ordinance. Vibration Measurements indicate that ground-borne vibration levels at the site are below the guideline thresholds. However, experience has shown that lightweight wood or metal structures with joist spans exceeding 15 feet can amplify ground-borne vibration by as much as 10 VdB. Resulting vibration levels on upper floors could be perceptible. Therefore, consider using reasonable measures to stiffen the structure (e.g. limit the span of unsupported floor joists to a maximum of 15-feet) to reduce amplification of ground-borne vibration in homes. Melissa Holmes 30 January 2007 Page 6 This concludes our analysis of environmental noise for the single family residential project at the Alma Plaza site in Palo Alto. Please do not hesitate to call if you have questions. Sincerely, CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIA~T~S, INC. Philip ~. Sanders Vice President Encl: Figure 1 - Alma Plaza, Palo Alto - Noise Measurement Locations 29 and 30 March 2005 Final Transportation Impact Analysis Alma Plaza Redevelopment F-EHR & PEERS TRANSPORTAIION CON S ULIANIS 160 W. Santa Clara St., Ste. 675 San Jose, CA 95113 January2007 Final Traffic Impact Analysis Alma Plaza Redevelopment Prepared For: Premier Properties Management JANUARY 2O07 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ..............................................~ .........................................................................................................1 Existing Conditions ...........................................................................................................................................5 Roadway Network ................................................................................................................................................5 Existing Intersection Volumes and Lane Configurations ...................................................................................10 Level of Service Methodologies .........................................................................................................................10 Existing Levels of Service ..................................................................................................................................13 Field Observations .............................................................................................................................................13 3.Background Conditions ..........................................................................................................................: .......15 Background Traffic Estimates ............................................................................................................................15 Background Levels of Service ...........................................................................................................................15 Project Conditions ...........................................................................................................................................18 Reoccupancy of Existing On-Site Retail Buildings ............................................................................................18 Project Traffic Volumes .....................................................................................................................................20 Project Intersection Levels of Service ...............................................................................................................21 Significant Impact Criteria ..................................................................................................................................26 Project Alternative ..............................................................................................................................................27 Site Access and On-Site Circulation ..................................................................................................................28 Parking Impacts .................................................................................................................................................30 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Impacts ..........................................................................................................30 Cumulative (Year 2015) Conditions ...............................................................................................................33 Year 2015 Traffic Estimates ..................................... .........................................................................................33 Year 2015 Cumulative Levels of Service ...........................................................................................................33 Year 2015 Cumulative Impacts .........................................................................................................................33 Project Alternative .............................................................................................................................................34 Site Access and On-Site Circulation ..................................................................................................................35 6.Conclusions .....................................................................................................................................................38 APPENDICES Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: Intersection LOS Worksheets Appendix C: Background and Cumulative Volumes Appendix D: Site Access and Queuing Calculations Appendix E: Signal Warrants Appendix F: Project Alternative Intersection LOS Calculations Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure LIST OF FIGURES 1 Project Site and Study Intersection Location .......................................................................................3 2-Site Plan ...............................................................................: ...............................................................4 3 Existing Transit Service ........................................................................................................................8 4 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................9 5 Existing Intersection Volumes, Lane Configurations and Controls ....................................................11 6 Background (Year 2010) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................................17 7 Project Trip Distribution (Retail and Residential) ...............................................................................19 8 Project Trip Assignment .....................................................................................................................23 9 Net Project Trip Assignment (Project Less Existing Site) ..................................................................24 10 Project Conditions (Year 2010) Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ..............................................................25 11 Future Bicycle Network ......................................................................................................................32 12 Cumulative (Year 2015) No Project Volumes ....................................................................................36 13 Cumulative (Year 2015) Plus Project Volumes ..................................................................................37 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 .....................................................................................................................................................................12 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ................................................................................................12 Table 2 .....................................................................................................................................................................12 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ............................................................................................12 Table 3 .....................................................................................................................................................................14 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ....................................................................................................................14 Table 4 .....................................................................................................................................................................16 Background Intersection Levels of Service ..............................................................................................................16 Table 5 .....................................................................................................................................................................18 Trip Generation For Reoccupancy of Existing Retail Space ....................................................................................18 Table 6 .....................................................................................................................................................................20 Project Trip Generation Rates and Estimates ..........................................................................................................20 Table 7 .....................................................................................................................................................................22 Background and Project Intersection Levels of Service ..........................................................................................22 Table 8 .....................................................................................................................................................................27 Project Alternative Trip Generation Rates and EstimateS .......................................................................................27 Table 9 .................................................................................................... .................................................................28 Background and Project Alternative Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................28 Table 10 ...................................: ...............................................................................................................................30 Parking Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................30 Table 11 ...................................................................................................................................................................34 Cumulative No Project and Plus Project Levels of Service ..................................................................’ ...................34 Table 12 ...................................................................................................................................................................35 Cumulative No Project and Plus Project Alternative Levels of Service ...................................................................35 1.INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the transportation impact analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed redevelopment of Alma Plaza on Alma Street in Palo Alto, CA. This proposed project includes 39 single-family detached residential units, 14 rental apartment units, and 22,500 square feet of retail space, and an 800 square foot community meeting room. The project site is currently a 45,600 square-foot retail plaza including a vacant Albertson’s and several small businesses, which would be removed as part of the project. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the potential impacts of the proposed redevelopmenton the surrounding transportation system in the project vicinity. Project impacts were evaluated following the guidelines of the City of Palo Alto and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County. The following intersections were chosen for analysis: 1.Loma Verde Avenue/Middlefield Road 2.Meadow Drive/Middlefield Road 3.Charleston Road/Middlefield Road 4.Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street 5.Meadow Drive/Alma Street 6.Charleston Road/Alma Street 7.Charleston Road/El Camino ReaI-Arastradero Road Figure 1 shows the location of the project site, the surrounding transportation network, and the study intersections. Figure 2 shows a detailed site plan of the proposed project. The seven study intersections were evaluated during the morning, AM, (7:00 am to 9:00 am) peak-hour and evening, PM, (4:00 pm to 6:00 pm) peak-hour for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions - Existing volumes obtained from traffic counts. Scenario 2: Background (2010) Conditions - Traffic volumes from the City of Palo Alto’s travel demand forecast model 2010 results plus the 901 San Antonio Road (Center.for Jewish Life) project traffic. Scenario 3: Project Conditions - Traffic volumes from Scenario 2 plus traffic generated by the proposed project less traffic from full occupancy of the existing buildings. Scenario 4: Cumulative (2015) Conditions -- Traffic volumes from the City of Palo Alto’s travel demand forecast model plus the project traffic from the Center for Jewish Life project. Scenario 5: Cumulative (2015) Plus Project Conditions - Traffic volumes from the City of Palo Afro’s travel demand forecast model 2015 results plus traffic generated by the proposed project less any traffic from full occupancy of the existing buildings. The remainder of this report is divided into five chapters. Chapter 2 presents Existing Conditions in terms of the existing roadway configurations, circulation patterns, and operating conditions of the study intersections. Chapter 3 presents Background (2010) Conditions. Chapter 4 describes the methods used to estimate the amount of traffic added to the surrounding roadways by the proposed project and its impacts on the surrounding transportation system under Project Conditions. Chapter 4 also includes discussion of site access, on-site circulation, and parking. Chapter 5 presents Cumulative (2015) Conditions both with and without the proposed project. Chapter 6 presents the study conclusions and recommendations including any proposed mitigation measures. 2 ~-. r~ Z Z 0 C) 2.EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter describes the existing roadway network and operations of the study intersections, and includes a discussion of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities located in the vicinity of the project study area. This chapter also includes a discussion of the methodology used to calculate intersection levels of service and interpret the corresponding results. ROADWAY NETWORK Existing Street System Figure 1 shows the project location and the surrounding roadway system. Regional access to the site is provided via US 101, Oregon Expressway, Middlefield Road, El Camino Real, Central Expressway/Alma Street, and Charleston Road. Local access to the site is provided via Loma Verde Avenue and Meadow Drive. Descriptions of the existing roadways are provided as follows: US 101 is a primary north-south freeway providing four travel lanes in each direction and is located east of the project site. One travel lane in each direction is designated as a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. HOV lanes, also known as diamond or carpool lanes, are restricted to use by vehicles occupied by two or more persons between 5:00 am and 9:00 am and between 3:00 pm and 7:00 pro. US 101 extends north through San Francisco and south through San Jose and Gilroy. Access to and from US 101 is provided via interchanges with Embarcadero Road-Oregon Expressway, San Antonio Road, and Rengstorff Avenue. Oregon Expressway is a four-lane, east-west roadway between US 101 and Alma Street. This roadway is designated Page Mill Expressway west of Alma Street and continues west to Interstate 280. Oregon Expressway ~s a designated local truck route. El Camino Real is a six-lane, north-south arterial (also SR-82) that extends south to Mountain View and Santa Clara and north to Redwood City, Millbrae, and San Bruno. El Camino provides access to Iocal.and regional commercial areas. The posted speed limit along El Camino in the project vicinity is 35 miles per hour (mph). Middlefield Road is a four-lane, north-south roadway that extends northerly from Mountain View through Palo Alto to Redwood City. It provides access to residential areas and neighborhood commercial areas. The posted speed limit in the project study area is 25 mph, although south of Charleston Road the speed increases to 35 mph. Charleston Road is a four-lane roadway that extends from El Camino Real in Palo Alto to US 101 in Mountain View. West of E Camino Real, Charleston Road is known as Arastradero Road. Charleston Road provides access to residential areas and neighborhood commercial areas. It is considered a school commute corridor in Palo Alto. Charleston Road, between Fabian Way and San Antonio Road, is a designated truck through route. Loma Verde Avenue is a two-lane, east-west roadway that extends from Alma Street to W. Bayshore Road providing access to residential areas. The posted speed limit on Loma Verde Avenue is 25 mph. Meadow Drive is a two-lane east-west roadway extending from El Camino Way (which connects to El Camino Real) to Fabian Way-W. Bayshore Road. The posted speed limit is 25 mph on Meadow Drive. Alma Street is a four-lane north-south roadway which runs parallel to the Caltrain line. The roadway extends from downtown Palo Alto to the south. Alma Street becomes Central Expressway south of San Antonio Road in Mountain View CA The posted speed limit on Alma Street in the project vicinity is 35 mph. 5 Note that near the project site, US 101, Middlefield Road, Alma Street, and El Camino Real run primarily in the east-west direction. Thus, for the purpose of this analysis, these streets are chosen as the east-west direction. Existing Transit Service Bus service near the project site is operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The Peninsula Joint Powers Board provides commuter rail service (Caltrain) from San Francisco to Gilroy, through San Jose. The existing transit facilities in the vicinity of the site are shown on Figure 3. Detailed descriptions of the transit service are presented below: Route 35 provides local bus service between the Stanford Shopping Center and Downtown Mountain View, including the Palo Alto Transit Center and Caltrain Station. In the project site area, Route 35 operates along Middlefield Road with service every 20 to 30 minutes in peak-hour periods, and runs from 6:15 AM to 10:30 PM. The bus stop closest to the project site is located at Middlefield Road and Meadow Drive. Sidewalks connect the project site to the bus stop. Route 88 provides local bus service between the California Avenue Caltrain Station and the Palo Alto Transit Center, the location of the Palo Alto Caltrain Station. In the project site area, Route 88 operates along Charleston Road. The line operates with one-hour headways, with some additional PM peak hour buses running between the Palo Alto Hospital and the California Street Transit Center. The route runs from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM during the week. The bus stop located closest to the project site is at Central Expressway and Charleston Road Sidewalks connect the project site to the bus stop. Route 104 provides express bus service between Palo Alto and East. San Jose via the Penitencia Creek Transit Center. Route 104 operates along Alma Street and Charleston Road near the project site. Route 104 provides westbound service during the AM commute period and eastbound service during the PM commute period. The bus stop closest to the project site is located at Alma Street and Meadow Drive. This is the closest bus stop to the proiect site. Sidewalks connect the project site to the bus stop. The Palo Alto Cross-town Shuttle runs between Downtown Palo Alto and East Charleston Road along Middlefield Road Loma Verde Avenue, Waverley Street, and Meadow Drive near the project site. The Shuttle runs every 30 minutes from 7 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday, connecting residential neighborhoods to schools, commercial districts, libraries, and the Palo Alto Caltrain Station. The closest bus stop to the project site is located at Meadow Drive and Waverley Street. Sidewalks connect the bus stop to the project site. Caltrain provides frequent passenger train service between San Jose and San Francisco seven days a week. During commute hours, Caltrain provides extended service to Morgan Hill and Gilroy. Two local- and express- service Caltrain stations are located near the site: 1) California Avenue Station located north of Oregon Expressway, and 2) San Antonio Station located just south of San Antonio Road. The Palo Alto Caltrain Station, located at University Avenue and Alma Street, offers "Baby Bullet" service, with express train service to both San Francisco and San Jose. The Baby Bullet express service stops at only four stations between San Jose and San Francisco, which significantly reduces the travel time for long distance trips. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities are comprised of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Crosswalks, sidewalk ramps, and pedestrian signals are provided at the study signalized intersections. Sidewalks are provided along the frontage of the project site and along the study roadways in the project area. Bicycle facilities comprise bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths (Class I) are paved pathways separated from roadways. Bike lanes (Class II) are lanes for bicyclists adjacent to the outside vehicle travel lanes. 6 These lanes have special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routesare generally located on low volume streets that provide alternative routes for recreational, and in some cases, commuter and school children cyclists. These facilities are designated Class III and are signed for bike use, but have no separated bike right-of-way or lane striping. Palo Alto also designates bike boulevards on certain streets with low traffic volumes and speeds with preferential treatment for cyclists. A map of the City of Palo Alto bicycle system is shown on Figure 4. A Class I bicycle path is provided north of US 101 in the Baylands Nature Preserve. Two bike bridges/underpasses, located at Oregon Expressway and Fabian Way, provide non-motorized access to this path. Additionally, a park path, which provides an off-road cut-through path for cyclists, is provided in Mitchell Park. Class II bike lanes are provided on Middlefield Road, Loma Verde Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, and Arastradero Road. Bryant Street is designated the Ellen Fletcher Bike Boulevard north of Meadow Drive. . ) LU P" EXISTING INTERSECTION VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS The operations of the seven study intersections were evaluated during the weekday morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak-hour conditions. Intersection turning movement counts were conducted at all the study locations in either October or November 2006. Three CMP intersection counts (collected in Qctober 2006) were obtained from the City of Palo Alto. The remaining intersections were counted in November 2006. Figure 5 presents the existing AM and PM peak-hour turning movement volumes and the corresponding lane configurations and traffic control devices at the study intersections (Intersections 3, 6, and 7 are CMP intersections). The traffic counts are contained in Appendix A. LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES The operations of the intersections were evaluated using Level of Service (LOS) calculations. Level of Service is a qualitative description of intersection operations, ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions, to LOS F, or over- saturated conditions. Signalized Intersections The level of service methodology approved by Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and adopted by the City of Palo Alto, analyzes signalized intersection operations based on average control vehicular delay calculated using the method described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board) with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect conditions in Santa Clara County. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and acceleration delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections is calculated using TRAFFIX analysis software and is correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 1. The LOS standard (i.e., minimum acceptable operations) for signalized local intersections in the City Palo Alto is LOS D. The LOS standard for regional intersections within the City of Palo Alto is LOS E. Unsignalized Intersection The unsignalized intersection (#4) at Loma Verde Avenue and Alma Street was evaluated using the methodology contained in Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capadty Manual. For two-way or side street-controlled intersections, level of service is calculated for each controlled movement, not for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. The City of Palo Alto does not have a standard for unsignalized intersections. For the purposes of this study, the minimum acceptable level of service for unsignalized intersections was defined to be LOS D. FEHR & PEERS 10 (zzO #~tt~’ (08) ~6 ~" I PN UOlSeH~qo (69) ~9..~(6’#~,) 60~ ~ (SZ) 6LI. ~ (89) ~6 (.LI.I-) 99!. ~ (o~:) ~z ~ TABLE 1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level of Service A B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- E+ E E- Description Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) < 10.0 10.1 to 12.0 12.1 to 18.0 18.1 to 20.0 20.1 to 23.0 23.1 to 32.0 32.1 to 35.0 35.1 to 39.0 39.1 to 51.0 51ol to 55.0 55.1 to 60.0 60.1 to 75.0 75.1 to 80.0 Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring dueFto over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.> 80.0 Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board. TABLE 2 UNSlGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Average Control Delay Level of Service Description Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Little or no delay < 10.0 B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0 Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board. FEH~ & EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersections Existing peak-hour volumes and lane configurations were used to calculate levels of service for each of the study intersections. The results of the existing LOS analysis are presented in Table 3 and the corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. As shown in Table 3, all study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak-hours under Existing Conditions, with the exception of unsignalized intersection #4, Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street, which operates at LOS F during the AM and PM peak-hours. The unacceptable LOS represents the southbound approach of Loma Verde Avenue and primarily the left-turn movements. Signal warrant analyses for Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street were completed to determine the need for a traffic signal. The Loma Verde/Alma intersection meets the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD, 2003) peak-hour and eight-hour vehicular volume signal warrants1 under Existing Conditions. FIELD OBSERVATIONS Field obsewations were conducted at the study intersections during the AM and PM peak periods in November 2006. The intersections were generally observed to operate at the calculated levels of service for each peak-hour period. Significant queues causing severe vehicle delays were observed at the following intersections: ¯Along Charleston Road during the AM (northbound) and PM (southbound) peak-hours (through El Camino Real, Alma, and Middlefield). ¯Eastbound along Alma Street in the PM peak-hour (through Meadow and Charleston). At intersection #6, Alma Street/Charleston Road, Caltrain operations contribute to delays along Charleston Road since the presence of the train stops traffic in the north/south directions. However, the traffic signal allots additional green time to through movements along Alma Street, which reduces the delays for the eastbound and westbound movements along Alma Street. At Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street, the delays observed for the southbound left-turns were typically 20 seconds or less during the AM and PM peak hours. Platooning effects in northbound traffic from the Alma Street/Meadow Drive intersection provided sufficient gaps for southbound left-turns from Loma Verde to Alma. The existing acceleration lane also allows these vehicles to proceed across the northbound lanes and merge into the southbound lanes in two stages, which helps alleviate the delays. 1 Unsignalized intersection warrant analysis is intended to examine the general correlation be.tween existing conditions and the need to install new traffic signals. Existing peak-hour volumes are compared against a subset of the standard traffic signal warrants recommended in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Federal Highway Administration 2000 and associated State guidelines. This analysis should not serve as the only basis for deciding whether and when to install a signal. To reach such a decision, the full set of warrants should be investigated based on field-measured traffic data and a thorough study of traffic and roadway conditions by an experienced engineer. Furthermore, the decision to install a signal should not be based solely on the warrants because the installation of signals can lead to certain types of collisions. The responsible state or local agency should undertake regular monitoring of actual traffic conditions and accident data and conduct a timely re-evaluation of the full set of warrants in order to prioritize and program intersections for signalization.. 13 TABLE 3 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection 1. Loma Verde Avenue/Middlefield Road _~.Meadow Drive/Middlefield Road ~,.Charleston Road/Middlefield Road $.Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street 5.Meadow Drive/Alma Street .~.Charleston Road/Alma Street 7.Charleston Road-Arastradero Road/El Camino Real Traffic Control Signal Signal Signal Side-Street Stop-Controlled Signal Signal Signal Peak Hour AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Delay (sec/veh)1 9.9 8.9 24.6 22.4 43.5 32.6 84.5 258.4 33.6 27.6 42.1 43.0 65.4 53.2 LOS2 A A C C+ D C- F -F C- C D D E D- Notes: Bold type indicates an unacceptable level of service. ~ Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. Control delay, expresse¢ in seconds per vehicle, is presented for the worst movementJapproach for the unsignalized intersection. -’ LOS calculations performed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. PEERS 14 3.BACKGROUND CONDITIONS This chapter discusses the operations of the study intersections under Background Conditions, defined as conditions prior to completion of the proposed development in the Year 2010. Traffic volumes for Background Conditions were obtained from the City of Palo Alto Traffic model. This chapter describes the methodology used to determine Year 2010 traffic volumes and summarizes the level of service analysis results. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC ESTIMATES Base Volumes The City of Palo Alto provided roadway segment volumes from their Citywide Traffic Model for Year 2010. It was assumed that the project trips from the existing retail plaza were included in the Year 2010 model projections. For several intersections where Existing traffic counts conducted in October and November 2006 exceeded the 2010 model output, the Furness process was used to project Background volumes for the year 2010. (See Appendix C for Fumess calculation sheets.) Approved Project Trips The project trips from the recently app, roved Center for Jewish Life (CJL) located at 901 San Antonio Road were added to the 2010 base model volumes for the study intersections. The trip assignment for the CJL project was obtained from the Transportation Impact Analysis for the Draft Environmental Impact Report as provided by the City of Palo Alto.2 Total Background Volumes The CJL trip assignment was added to the base volumes to represent Background (Year 2010) peak-hour traffic volumes as shown on Figure 6. BACKGROUND LEVELS OF SERVICE Levels of service were calculated for the study intersections using the background traffic volumes. Table 4 presents the LOS results and the corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix C. Under Background Conditions, four of the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better, an acceptable level of service. Three intersections will operate at unacceptable levels of service during one or both peak hours: ¯Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street (AM and PM peak-hours) ¯Charleston Road/Alma Street (PM peak-hour) ¯Charleston Road-Arastradero Road/El Camino Real (AM and PM peak-hours) 2 Prepared by Korve Engineering, February 2006. 15 TABLE 4 BACKGROUND INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Traffic Peak Delay Intersection Control Hour (sec/veh)1 LOS2 1. Loma Verde Avenue/Middlefieid Road Signal AM 10.0 A PM 9.0 A 2. Meadow Drive/Middlefield Road Signal AM 16.9 B PM 33.6 C- 3. Charleston Road/Middlefield Road Signal AM 52.8 D- PM 50.9 D 4. Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street Side-Street AM 123.5 F Stop Controlled PM 415.2 F 5. Meadow Drive/Alma Street Signal AM 39.5 D PM 45.8 D 6. Charleston Road/Alma Street Signal AM 60.4 E PM 97.2 F 7. Charleston Road-Arastradero Road/El Camino Real Signal AM 138.2 F PM 141.3 F Notes: Bold type indicates unacceptable level of service. Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. Control delay, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is presented for the worst movementJapproach for the unsignalized intersection. LOS calculations performed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. 16 65 (6o)1541 (1180) 98 (148) 76 (16)-J 745 (1650) --~ 114 (21)--’~ 119 (258)744 (1374) ,.--~,- 95 (152) ~-73(36) -.,,~--1373 (1200) ~,~-261(318) Alma Street 329 (214) 618 (930)203 (173) ~ 84 (38)~ 868 (848) y-’-- 380 (399) 142 (330)-’’~ 854 (2324)---’~ 175 (174)’-",~ ~--- 114 (293)~ 2618 (2306) ~--746 (517) [ El Camino Re~]- ~~ I~ ~-- Alma Slreel - 202 (336) --~ 889 (1303) ---~ KEY: XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TR At~[SPORTAT~ 0N CONSULTANTS January 2007 SJ06-894 Alma Plaza TIA BACKGROUND CONDITIONS (YEAR 2010) PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 6 4.PROJECT CONDITIONS This chapter presents the impacts of the proposed residential development on the surrounding roadway system. First, the methodology used to estimate the amount of traffic generated by the project is described. Then, the results of the level of service calculations for Project Conditions are presented. A comparison of the intersection operating levels under Background and Project Conditions is made, and the resulting impacts of the project on the study intersections are discussed. Site access, on-site circulation, parking, and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit impacts are also addressed in this chapter. REOCCUPANCY OF EXISTING ON-SITE RETAIL BUILDINGS Under Project Conditions, traffic volumes from the reoccupancy of the existing vacant buildings on the project site, or 45,600 square feet of retail space, were subtracted from the 2010 model volumes, since these buildings could be reoccupied at any time. The traffic generated by reoccupancy of the retail buildings was estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. The first step estimates the amount of traffic added to the roadway network. The second step estimates the direction of travel to and from the project site. The trips are assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements during the third step. The results for the reoccupancy of the existing vacant buildings are described in the following sections. Trip Generation The amount of traffic added to the surrounding roadway system by the vacant 45,600 square foot retail space was estimated by applying supermarket and specialty retail trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation. Table 5 summarizes the estimated trip generation with reoccupancy of the vacant buildings. Reoccupancy of the retail space would generate 3,040 daily trips, 86 AM peak-hour trips (53 inbound/33 outbound), and 325 PM peak-hour trips (159 inbound/166 outbound). TABLE 5 TRIP GENERATION FOR REOCCUPANCY OF EXISTING RETAIL SPACE Size (ksf)Land Use Rate Total Rate Out Total Supermarket 17.6 3.25 57 13.41 11 6 236 Specialty Retail 28.0 1.03 29 3.18 50 89 Total Existing Trips 86 166 325 ~ Rate per ksf (1,000 s.f.) Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Daily AM Rate1 Trips In Out 102.24 1,799 35 22 44.32 1,241 18 11 %040 53 33 PM In 120 39 159 Trip Distribution The trip distribution pattern for the retail land use was estimated based on existing travel patterns near the site, previous studies, and the relative locations of complementary land uses in the area. The major travel directions for the retail-based trips to approach and depart the project site are shown on Figure 7. 18 / / /III / / / / / / / / / / kkl \ I / On,’ Trip Assignment The retail trips were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure discussed above. PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Trip Generation The proposed project consists of 53 housing units (39 single-family homes and 14 rental apartment units)., an 800 square foot community room, and 22,500 square feet of retail. Trip generation rates for "Single-Family Detached", "Apartment", and "Specialty Retail" land uses from ITE’s Trip Generation were applied to the number of proposed residential units or the gross leasable square footage of the retail space. For the 800 square foot community room, the trip number of trips was estimated assuming 15 square feet per person using the building, 75% occupancy, and 1.5 persons per vehicle arriving at the site. No AM peak-hour trips were included for the community room, as it would likely not be used before 9:00 AM. The proposed project trip estimates were subtracted from the reoccupancy of the vacant retail space trip estimates. As shown in Table 6, the proposed residential development is estimated to generate approximately 1,371 fewer daily trips, 15 fewer AM peak-hour trips, and 151 fewer PM peak-hour trips than reoccupancy of the fetal buildings. TABLE 6 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION RATES AND ESTIMATES ITE Land Use Code Rate1 Reoccupany of Existing Retail Buildings Supermarket (17.6 ksf)850 102.24 Specialty Retail (28.0 ksf)8142 44.32 Existing Trips Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Rate1 In I Out TotalI PM Peak Hour In I Out TotalIRate1 t -1,799 3.25 -35 -22 -57 13.41 -120 -116 -236 -1,241 1.03 -18 -11 -29 3.18 -39 -50 -89 -3,040 -53 -33 -86 -159 -166 -325 Proposed Project Single-Family (39 units)210 11.21 437 0.95 9 28 37 1.18 29 17 46 Apartments (14 units)220 16.75 234 0.79 2 9 11 1.79 16 9 25 Specialty Retail (22.5 ksf)814 44.32 997 1.03 14 9 23 3.33 33 42 75 Community Room (800 sf)3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35 28 0 28 Proposed Project Trips 1,669 25 46 71 106 68 174 Rate per ksf (1,000 s.f.) or per unit. 2AM Rate from ITE Shopping Center (820). Number of trips estimated based on assumptions of 75% occupancy, 15 s.f./person, and 1.5 persons/vehicle. Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (2003). £_.p F~-~r~ & P~ Trip Distribution The trip distribution for the proposed residential use was developed in a similar manner to the distribution for the retail use. The distribution pattern was based on existing travel patterns in the site vicinity, previous studies, and the relative locations of complementary land uses in the area. Figure 7 presents the estimated directions of approach and departure for the proposed residential development. Trip Assignment The residential trips were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure discussed above. Figure 8 presents the project trip assignment at the study intersections. The net (project less background trips from reoccupancy of the vacant site) trip assignment is presented on Figure 9. Individual movements with negative numbers indicate that reoccupancy of the office use would generate a higher number of trips than the residential trips. The net trip assignment was added to the Background Volumes to represent Project Conditions as shown on Figure 10. PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Table 7 presents the LOS results under Background and Project Conditions. As indicated in the previous section, the proposed project would generate fewer trips than reoccupancy of the existing retail buildings. Therefore, the intersection delay under Project Conditions improved slightly at the study intersections. Under Project Conditions the following intersections operate at unacceptable levels of service: ¯Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street (AM and PM peak-hours) ¯Charleston Road/Alma Street (PM peak-hours) ,,Charleston Road-Arastradero Road/El Camino Real (AM and PM peak-hours) These are the same three intersections that operated0at unacceptable levels of service underthe Ba~ckground Conditions. 21 .,i TABLE 7 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Background Conditions Peak Delay Intersection Hour (sec/veh)l . Loma Verde Avenue/Middlefield Road AM 10.0 PM 9.0 2. Meadow Drive/Middlefield Road AM 16.9 PM 33.6 3. Charleston Road/Middlefield Road AM 52.8 PM 50.9 4. Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street AM 123.5 PM 415.2 5. Meadow Drive/Aima Street AM 39.5 PM 45.8 6. Charleston Road/Alma Street AM 60.4 PM 97.2 7. Charleston Road-Arastradero Road/El AM 138.2 Camino Real PM 141.3 LOS2 A A B C- D- D F F D D E F F F Delay (sec/veh) 10.0 8.8 16.8 33.4 52.6 49.5 113,8 319.7 38.9 42.1 59.6 91.4 137.6 139,9 Project Conditions /~ in Crit. LOS V/C3 A -0.002 A -0.008 B -0.002 C--0.008 D-+0.002 D -0.009 F N/A F N/A D+-0.009 D -0.021 E+-0.005 F -0.025 F -0.002 F -0.003 in Crit. Delay4 -0.0 -0.3 -0.1 -0.5 -1.1 -2.5 N/A N/A -0.8 -5.5 -1.2 -9.3 -1.1 -1.5 Notes: Significant impacts are highlighted in bold. Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. Control delay, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is presented for the worst movementJapproach for the unsignalized intersection. LOS calculations performed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. Change in average critical movement delay between Background and Project Conditions. Change in critical volume to capacity ratio between Background and Project Conditions. 22 (2) ~ 6 (24) I---Alma Slreet (17) ~ 04 o (2) (5) Middlefield R~oad ~ ~---- 2 (10) (5)J ~(7) --~ ~(5) --~ ~ 1 (4) 0(1)J ~1 (3) ~o ~ ~ ~ 1 (2) ~EI Camino Real (8) 3 (12) ---~ KEY: XX(YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATIOh CONSL L~ANTS Januar~ 2007 SJ06-894 Alma Plaza TIA PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT .FIGURE 8 -2 (-5)--x I Middlefield Road f-3 (-5) Middlefield Road -9 (-17) ~ 1 (-9) 4 (-36) 2 (-14)--~ Alma Street KEY." XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FEHR & PEERS TRARSPORTATION CONSULTANTS January 2007 SJ06-894 Alma Plaza TIA NET TRIP ASSIGNMENT (PROJECT TRIPS LESS BACKGROUND TRIPS) FIGURE 9 72 (-3)735 (1601 ) --~,- 11’ (3) --,~ ~-- 65 (60) ~ I525 (1141)F’- 98 (148) Alma Street 116 (243)--’~ 740 (1354) ,,.--~,,~ 92 (138) --~, ~K.-73 (36)~.~,.,.--1367(1184) ,~,--261 (318) Alma Street 142 (330) 854 (2324) 173 (165) ~ 112 (289)~ 2618 (2306) f 746 (517) I El Camino Real 941 (1716) --"~- ~ 1891 (1601) Alma Streel ~’.-- 3 (14)~ 1890 (1594) I Alma Streel 939 (1706) -.-..~ ~’---7 (28)1883 (1568) Alma Street KEY: XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes F HR & TRA~ SPORTAT1ON CONSULTANTS January 2007 SJ06-894 Alma Plaza TIA PROJECT CONDITIONS (YEAR 2010) PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 10 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA The results of the level of service calculations for Background Conditions were compared to the results for Project Conditions to identify significant project impacts. Signalized Intersections A significant project impact to a signalized intersection would occur if the project results in one of the following: Causes a signalized City of Palo Alto (local) intersection to deteriorate from acceptable LOS D conditions or better to unacceptable LOS E or F conditions, Causes a study signalized City of Palo Alto (local) intersection currently operating at LOS E or F conditions to increase in critical movement delay of four (4) seconds or more, and increase in the critical volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more, Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from acceptable LOS E conditions or better to unacceptable LOS F conditions, or ¯Cause a regional intersection currently operating at LOS F conditions to increase in critical movement delay of four (4) seconds or more, and increase in the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more. Although Charlesion Road/Alma Street (PM) and Charleston Road-Arastradero Road/El Camino Real (AM and PM) operate at unacceptable levels of service, the signalized intersections are projected to operate at slightly lesser levels of delay under Project Conditions. Therefore, the proposed project is estimated to have a less-than- significant impact to all of the signalized study intersections. Unsignalized Intersections The City of Palo Alto does not have significance criteria for unsignalized intersections. For this ar~alysis, a significant impact to an unsignalized intersection would occur if the project results in any of the following: Cause an unsignalized intersection to decrease in LOS from acceptable (i.e., LOS D or better) to unacceptable (LOS E or F), or decrease from LOS E to LOS F; or Cause an increase in delay of four (4) seconds or more to a stop-controlled movement currently operating at LOS E or F conditions. Unsignalized intersection #4, Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street, is projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS F under Background Conditions, due to difficulty making southbound left-turns from Loma Verde Avenue onto Alma Street. However, under Project conditions, Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street would operate with slightly a lower worst movement average control delay. Thus, the proposed project is estimated to have a less-than-significant impact to the Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street intersection. Signal warrant analyses for the Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street intersection indicated that this intersection meets peak-hour warrants under Existing Conditions, and will continue to meet warrants through Background and Project Conditions. Neighborhood Traffic Impacts A Significant project impact would occur if the project results in the following: FEHR & Pf~ERS 26 Causes any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more on a local or collector residential street, Project trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the project trip distribution shown in Figure 7. The majority of the project trips will access the site using Alma Street. The remaining three homes that will access the site via Ramona Street are not projected to have an effect on the TIRE index, as the volume of traffic added to the local roadways is negligible. Additionally, the number of net new trips is negative (i.e., the reoccupancy of the vacant commercial lots on the site would generate more trips than the proposed project), thus the TIRE index will be less for the proposed project than for reoccupancy. The proposed project will have a less- than-significant-impact to neighborhood traffic. PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ,.. The City requested analysis of a project alternative increasing the retail space to 26,500 square feet with a 1,061 square foot community room. The residential portion of the project would remain the same. The same trip generation rates were applied to the project alternative. The trip generation estimates for the project alternative are summarized in Table 8. Compared to the proposed project, the project alternative would generate 4 more AM peak-hour trips and 19 more PM peak-hour trips and still generate fewer peak-hour trips than reoccupancy of the existing retail buildings. TABLE 8 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TRIP GENERATIONRATES AND ESTIMATES AM Peak Hour Rate1 In I Out t Total ITE Daily PM Peak Hour Land Use Code Rate1 Trips Rate~ I In Gut Total Reoccupany of Existing Retail Buildings 3upermarket(17.6ksf)850 102.24 -1,799 3.25 -35 -22 -57 13.41 -120 -116 -236 .~pecialty Retail (28.0 ksf)8142 44.32 -1,241 1.03 -18 -11 -29 3.18 -39 -50 -89 Existing Trips -3,040 -53 -33 -86 -159 -166 -325 Proposed Project Single-Family (39 units)210 11.21 437 0.95 9 28 37 1.18 29 17 46 ~,partments (14 units)220 16.75 234 0.79 2 9 11 1.79 16 9 25 Specialty Retail (26.5 ksf)814 44.32 1,173 1.03 17 10 27 3.33 37 48 85 ~3ommunity Room (1061 sf)3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35 37 0 37 !Proposed Project Trips 1,845 28 47 75 119 74 193 Rate per ksf (1,000 s.f.) or per unit. =AM Rate from ITE Shopping Center (820). ~Number ol trips estimated based on assumptions of 75% occupancy, ! 5 sJ./person, and 1.5 persons/vehicle. Source: Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (2003). Intersection levels of service were calculated with the project alternative trips and are presented in Table 9. The LOS calculation worksheets are included in Appendix F. All of the study intersections will operate at the same levels of service with the project alternative as the proposed project and reduce the overall delays from Background Conditions. Therefore, the project alternative would not have a significant impact at any of the study intersections. TABLE 9 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection . Loma Verde Avenue/Middlefield Road AM PM _>. Meadow Drive/Middlefield Road AM PM 3. Charleston Road/Middlefield Road AM PM 4. Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street AM PM 5. Meadow Drive/Alma Street AM PM 6. Charleston Road/Alma Street AM PM 7. Charleston Road-Arastradero Road/El AM Camino Real PM Peak Hour Background Conditions Delay (sec/veh)~ 10.0 9.0 16.9 33.6 52.8 50.9 123.5 415.2 39.5 45.8 60.4 97.2 138.2 141.3 LOS2 A A B C- D- D F F D D E F F F Project Alternative Conditions Delay (sec/veh)LOS 10.0 A 8.8 A 16.8 B 33.4 C- 52.6 D- 49.7 D 114.2 F 331.0 F 39.0 D+ 42.4 D 59.6 E+ 92.1 F 137.6 F 139.9 F Ain Crit. V/Ca -0.002 -0.008 -0.002 -0.007 -0.003 -0.008 N/A N/A -0.008 -0.020 -0.005 -0.023 -0.002 -0.003 A in Crit. Delay‘= 0.0 -0.3 -0.1 -0.5 -0.2 -2.1 N/A N/A -0.7 -5.2 -1.2 -8.3 -1.1 -1.5 Notes: Significant impacts are highlighted in bold. Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. Control delay, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is presented for the worst movement/approach for the unsignalized intersection. z LOS calculations performed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. Change in average critical movement delay between Background and Project Alternative Conditions. Change in critical volume to capacity ratio between Background and Project Alternative Conditions. SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION A significant project impact would occur if the project results in any one of the following: ¯Creates an operational safety hazard, or Results in inadequate emergency access. As shown on Figure 2, access to the site will be provided via three driveways on Alma Street. The mixed-use building and 36 of the 39 proposed single family dwelling units will access the site via these driveways. The middle driveway is a full-access driveway with a left-turn inbound lane and an acceleration lane for outbound left- turn traffic provided on Alma Street. 28 The western driveway is right-turn in and out only and connects to the existing Stanford Apartment complex located just west of the full-access driveway. The eastern driveway is an exit-only, right-turn only driveway. Three of the single-family housing units will have individual driveway access via Ramona Street. There is no access from the remaining portion of the site. The number and spacing of the driveways is sufficient to accommodate the projected traffic volumes generated by the proposed development. Additionally, the presence of several driveways contributes to the enhancement of emergency access, should one of the driveways ever be blocked. A small grid pattern is proposed for the interior roadways. All internal roadways accommodate two-way travel. Perpendicular parking is proposed along portions of A Street, B Street, and C Street, and along the main circulation aisle for the mixed-use building parallel to Alma Street. Two-way travel lanes are proposed on the site, with the exception of the eastern-access driveway, which is exit only. On-site circulation is enhanced by the connections to the surrounding developments, including the Stanford Apartments and the existing office building on the eastern side of the site. The on-site circulation is considered acceptable with the addition of stop signs at the internal intersection formed by D Street and the commercial garage access. Left-Turn Pockets or Deceleration Lanes at the Driveways The project trip assignment at the full-access project driveway on Alma Street was evaluated to determine if the existing left-turn pocket or deceleration lanes are adequate to accommodate inbound vehicles. At the Alma Street full-access driveway, there is an existing concrete raised median that provides storage for vehicles turning left into or out of the project site. The existing inbound storage pocket is 450 feet long. The number of trips turning left into or out of the project site is 10 during the AM peak hour and 48 during the PM peak hour. Level of service calculations and queuing analyses were performed to determine the need for an extended left-turn storage pocket within the median. The full-access driveway operates acceptably at LOS D for both peak- hours. The maximum queues were calculated as 1 vehicle in the AM peak-hour and 3 vehicles in the PM peak- hour for the westbound left-turn into the project site from Alma Street. The maximum queue for the southbound left-turn vehicles exiting this driveway were calculated as 2 vehicles in the AM peak-hour and 3 vehicles in the PM peak-hour. Extending the .left-turn storage area is not required. See Appendix D for unsignalized LOS calculation sheets and queuing analysis. The number of trips turning right into the project site is 10 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 42 during the PM peak hour. Queues of zero vehicles were calculated at the exit-only, right-turn only and right-in right-out driveways. Although the amount of traffic on Alma Street in either direction is approximately 3,000 vehicles in both directions during the AM or PM peak hour, due to the relatively small number of turning vehicles and no queuing, dedicated right-turn pockets are not recommended at the driveways. Frontage Road The project proposes to modify the existing two-way frontage road along Alma Street just east of the project site. This frontage road starts at the Alma Street and Meadow Drive intersection and provides access to the adjacent office buildings. As shown on the site plan (see Figure 2), the frontage road will be reconfigured to allow one-way westbound traffic only. In addition, angled parking will be provided just east of the office building driveway and parallel parking will be provided to the west for a total of fifteen (15) on-street parking spaces. This change is considered an improvement to the existing configuration as the current layout is unconventional. Maintaining the frontage road as one-way will allow continued access to the office buildings while providing a more predictable layout for vehicles. 29 PARKING IMPACTS A significant project impact would occur if the project results in inadequate on-site parking capacity. As shown in Table 10, the proposed site plan includes 209 total parking stalls, 78 in 2-car garages for the residential units, 13 guest parking spaces for the residential units, and 119 stalls for the retail and mixed-use components of the project. The City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance requires that the proposed project supply 166 on-site parking spaces. TABLE 10 PARKING ANALYSIS Land Use Number of Units Required Supply1 Units Spaces Per Unit Required Provided Supply Adequate Supply Stalls (Y/N)? Residential Single Family Detached 39 I d.u.2 d.u.78 I 912 V1ixed-Use Retail/Community Room 23,300 s.f.350 s.f.67 96 Apartments 14 d.u.1.5 d.u.21 22 Y Y Y 1 Required Supply from City of Palo Alto’s Zoning Ordinance. 2 78 stalls provided in 2-car garages for each of 39 units. 13 of 91 provided stalls are designated guest parking. The project will meet the City’s parking requirements. In addition, the project will provide 15 on-street parking stalls along Alma Street. The project thus provides an adequate number of parking stalls for the proposed development. The City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance also requires the inclusion of bicycle parking for the mixed-use component of the project, at a rate of 10% of automobile parking. It is recommended that the project include 9 bicycle parking spaces. The City’s Ordinance specifies that at least three spaces must be Class I, three must be Class II, and three must be Class III facilities. PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT IMPACTS Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation An impact to pedestrians and/or bicyclists occurs if the proposed project impedes the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities. This would occur if the project conflicts with the existing or planned bicycle facilities or creates pedestrian and bicycle demand without providing adequate and appropriate facilities for safe non-motorized mobility. Existing sidewalks are provided along the project frontage on Alma Street, the rear of the site along Ramona Street, along Loma Verde Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, and Middlefield Road. The local bus stops are all accessible via existing sidewalks. The proposed site plan shows sidewalks along internal alleys to provide pedestrian access to the residential units. The streets proposed in the site plan provide access to the units’ garages. Sidewalks also are maintained along Alma Street and Ramona Street around the perimeter of the site. FEHR & PEERS 30 Bike lanes are provided on Middlefield Road, Loma Verde Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, and Arastradero Road near to the project site. A map of the future Palo Alto bicycle network is presented on Figure 11. According to this figure, Alma Street will be designated as a future bike route, however north of Meadow Drive there are implementation concerns due to the narrow width of the travel lanes and the lack of a raised center median. The proposed project does not conflict with existing or planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities, therefore, the project would not have an impact on pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Transit An impact to transit would occur if the project impedes the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion. mpacts to transit are considered significant if the proposed project impedes the development or operation of existing or planned transit facilities or generates potential transit trips without adequate transit capacity or adequate facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists to access transit stops. The project site will generate new transit trips for the residential component of the project. Transit trips for the retail portion of the site were assumed negligible. Using a 3% transit mode split, the transit demand from the residential units was calculated to be one AM peak-hour trip and two PM peak-hour trips. Due to the low demand, the transit facilities will be able to withstand the increase in transit trips. Although direct transit service to the site is not provided, the existing transit route #104 stops at the southern leg of the Alma Street/Meac]ow Drive intersection, within one-quarter mile of the project site. It should be noted that Route #104 only provides service during the AM and PM commute hours. Additional transit stops along route #35, #88, and the Pato Alto Cross- town Shuttle are located within the one-quarter and one-half mile range from the project site on Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, and Middlefield Road The projecl would nol have a significant impact to transit facilities. 31 5.CUMULATIVE (YEAR 2015) CONDITIONS This chapter discusses the development of cumulative traffic projections for cumulative (Year 2015) Conditions. Cumulative Conditions is assumed to be Year 2015 which corresponds to the future year of the City’s travel demand forecasting model. YEAR 2015 TRAFFIC ESTIMATES Year 2015 No Project Volumes Year 2015 No Project traffic estimates were developed using traffic volumes from the City of Palo Alto’s model. Trips generated from the Campus for Jewish Life Project located at 901 San Antonio Road were added to the study intersections as well. Figure 12 shows the Cumulative (Year 2015) No Project traffic volumes. Year 2015 Plus Project Volumes The net trip assignment (project less the reoccupancy of the existing retail space), as shown on Figure 9, was added to Year 2015 No Project volumes to estimate Year 2015 Plus Project volumes (see Figure 13). YEAR 2015 CUMULATIVE LEVELS OF SERVICE Table 11 presents the evels of service under the Year 2015 Conditions. The Loma ~/erde Avenue/Middlefield Road and Meadow Drive/Middlefield Road intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels under Year 2015 No Project and Year 2015 Plus Project Conditions. The following intersections operate at unacceptable levels of service for both 2015 No Project and 2015 Plus Project Conditions during one or both peak hours: ¯Charleston Road/Middlefield Road (PM peak-hour) ,,Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street (AM and PM peak-hours) o Meadow Drive/Alma Street (PM peak-hour) o Charleston Road/Alma Street (AM and PM peak-hours) o Charleston Road-Arastradero Road/El Camino Real (AM and PM peak-hours) As with Background Conditions, the vehicular delay and LOS values improved slightly from No Project to Plus Project Conditions, as the reoccupancy of the existing retail space places more trips on the surrounding roadway network. YEAR 2015 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS All intersections are projected to operate at improved levels of service from No Project to Plus Project (Year 2015) Conditions. Therefore, the proposed project is estimated to have a less-than-significant impact to both the signalized and unsignalized study intersections. 33 TABLE 11 CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT AND PLUS PROJECT LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection 1. Loma Verde Avenue/Middlefield AM Road PM 2. Meadow.Drive/Middlefield Road AM PM 3. Charleston Road/Middlefield Road AM PM ~. Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street AM PM 5. Meadow Drive/Alma Street AM PM 5. Charleston Road/Alma Street AM PM i7. Charleston Road-Arastradero AM Road/El Camino Real PM Peak Hour 2015 No Project Conditions Delay (sec/veh)1 LOS2 10.2 B+ 9,2 A 17.2 B 42.5 D 59.1 E+ 89,7 F 186.6 F 685.6 F 46.7 D 87.6 F 82.3 F 193.7 F 182.5 F 182.7 F 2015 Plus Project Conditions Delay A in Crit. (sec/veh)LOS V/C3 10.2 B+-0.002 9.0 A -0.008 17,1 B 0.000 42.3 D -0.008 58.8 E+-0.003 87.6 F -0.009" 172.0 F N/A 537.7 F N/A 45,6 D -0.009 81.4 F -0.020 81.3 F -0.005 186.4 F -0.025 181.9 F -0,002 181.2 F -0,003 A in Crit. Delay4 0,0 -0.3 0,0 -0.5 -0,5 -3.8 N/A N/A -8.8 -1.4 -11,2 -1,1 -1,5 qotes: Significant impacts are highlighted in bold. Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. Control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle, is presented for the worst movement!approach for the unsignalized intersection. LOS calculations performed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. ~Change in average critical movement delay between 2015 No Project and 2015 Plus Project Conditions. ~Change in critical volume to capacity ratio between 2015 No Project and 2015 Plus Project Conditions. PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The net new trips for the project alternative were added to the 2015 No Project volumes and intersection levels of service were conducted. Table 12 presents the levels of service under the Year 2015 Conditions with the project alternative. As with the proposed project, the vehicular delay and LOS values improved slightly from No Project to Plus Project Alternative Conditions. Therefore, the project alternative is estimated to have a less-than-significant impact to both the signalized and unsignalized study intersections 34 TABLE 12 CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT AND PLUS PROJECT ALTERNATIVE LEVELS OF SERVICE Peak Intersection Hour 1. Loma Verde Avenue/Middlefield :~oad 2.Meadow Drive/Middlefield Road 3.Charleston Road/Middlefie.ld Road 4.Loma Verde Avenue/Alma Street 5.Meadow Drive/Alma Street 6.Charleston Road/Alma Street 7. Charleston Road-Arastradero Road/El Carnino Real AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Notes: Significant impacts are highlighted in bold. 2015 No Project Conditions Delay (sec/veh)1 LOS2 10.2 B+ 9.2 A 17.2 B 42.5.D 59.1 E+ 89.7 F 186.6 F 685.6 F 46.7 D 87.6 F 82.3 F 193.7 F 182.5 F 182.7 F 2015 Plus Project Alternative Conditions Delay (sec/veh)LOS 10.2 B+ 9.0 A 17.1 B 42.3 D 58.8 E+ 87.9 F 172.6 F 554.2 F 45.7 D 81.8 F 81.3 F 187.2 F 181.9 F 181.3 F A in Crit.V/C3 -0.002 -0.008 0.000 -0.007 -0.003 -0.008 N/A N/A -0.008 -0.019 -0.005 -0.023 -0.002 -0.003 in Crit. Delay4 0.0 -0.3 0.0 -0.5 -0.4 -3.3 N/A N/A -1.3 -8.2 -1.4 -9.9 -1.1 -1.5 Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. Control delay, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is presented for the worst movementJapproach for the unsignalized intersection. LOS calculations performed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. Change in average critical movement delay between Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Alternative Conditions. Change in critical volume to capacity ratio between Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Alternative Conditions. SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION Analysis of the project driveways under Year 2015 Plus Project Conditions was performed to ensure adequate site access under Cumulative Conditions. Levels of service calculations were completed for the full-access driveway and queuing analyses were completed for all. three project driveways. Results of the level of service calculation show the full-access driveway operating at LOS E under AM (41.2 seconds delay) and PM (41.3 seconds of delay) peak hours. Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions, queuing calculations were completed for the AM and PM peak hours. The queuing worksheets are included in Appendix D. The eastbound left-turn queue into the project site from Alma Street was estimated to be 1 vehicle in the AM peak-hour and 3 vehicles in the PM peak-hour. For the southbound left-turn out of the project site, the queue was estimated to be 2 vehicles in the AM peak-hour and 3 vehicles in the PM peak-hour. The existing left-turn pocket into the site is adequate to handle these queues. No queuing was calculated for the exit-only right-turn driveway, and the right-in right-out only driveway. 35 46 (50)619 (820) 98 (99) ~ 70 (63)~ 645 (763) ~,-- 48 (77) I Middlefield Road 44 (94)983 (1210) 39 (203) "-,~ 155 (141)862 (1201) ~,~35 (11a) ~Middlefield Road 359 (269) J638 (1066) ---~ 203 (174) "-~ ~ 91 (48) -~- 719 (708) ~-- 476 (489) Middlefietd Road 84 (22)746 (1802) ---.~- 127 (22) ~67 (71)~1643 (1339) ~102 (181) Alma Street 108 (314)-‘’4 755 (1449) .--~ 95 (192) --~ ~,--79 (40)~ 1477 (1372) ~--- 261 (370) Alma Street 175 (359).-~ 898 (2704) ~ 166 (173) ~ 151 (344)2875 (2629) 763 (554) El Camino Real KEY: XX (YY) = AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS January 2007 SJ06-894 Alma Plaza TIA CUMULATIVE (YEAR 2015) PEAK-HOUR TNAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 12 6.CONCLUSIONS Reoccupancy of the existing vacant 45,600 square foot retail space would generate 3,040 daily trips, 86 AM peak- hour trips (53 inbound/33 outbound), and 325 PM peak-hour trips (159 inbound/166 outbound). The proposed residential development (39 single-family units, 14 rental apartment units, 22.5 ksf of retail, and 800 sf community room) is estimated to generate approximately 1,371 fewer daily trips, 15 fewer AM peak-hour trips, and 151 fewer PM peak-hour trips than reoccupancy of the retail buildings. Intersection operations were evaluated at seven study intersections with level of service calculations during the weekday morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak periods for Existing, Background, Project, Cumulative (2015) No Project Conditions, and Cumulative (2015) Plus Project Conditions. All intersections are projected to operate at improved levels of service under the Project scenarios compared with the Existing, Background, or Cumulative Conditions, thus, no significant impacts were identified. The City requested analysis of a project alternative that inctuded 26,500 square feet of retail and a 1,061 square foot community room. The project alternative would generate 4 more AM peak-hour trips and 19 more PM peak- hour trips. As with the proposed project, all study intersections would operate with reduced delays compared to Background and 2015 No Project Conditions. Therefore, the project alternative would not have any significant impacts to the study intersections. The number and spacing of the driveways is sufficient to accommodate the projected traffic volumes generated by the proposed development. Alma Street is anticipated to accommodate the Background (2010) and Cumulative (2015) AM or PM peak-hour volumes. Based on the proposed trip assignment at the project driveways, extending left-turn lanes or deceleration lanes to accommodate inbound vehicles is not required and no additional significant queues are projected on Alma Street or at the project driveways. The on-site circulation is considered acceptable with the provision of stop signs at the D Street/garage access internal intersection. The project is estimated to have a less-than significant impact to the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities since adequate pedestrian facilities are provided, the proposed project does not conflict with existing or planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and existing transit service is provided within one-quarter mile of the project site. FEHR & PEERS 38