The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 357-09TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 357:09 DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: Approval of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of (1) a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to Change the Land Use Designation for 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real from Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel, and (2) an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Change the Zone Designation For Approximately 0.30 acre at 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real (Dinah's Hotel) from RM-15 (Low Density Residential Multi- Family) to CS (L)(D) (Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project is a City-initiated request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation of a vacant 13,200 sq. ft. portion of the Dinah's Hotel site located at 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real. These changes would make this panhandle-shaped portion of the site consistent with the zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations for the remainder of the site, while providing a permanent buffer from the Charleston Meadows area. 1t would also prohibit vehicular access from Wilkie Way and accommodate a landscape and pedestrian/bicycle easement to connect to the park at the new Redwood Gate (Summerhill Homes) development. On August 12,2009, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended approval of the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan designation. Staff also recommends approval of the proposed changes. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve the Negative Declaration (Attachment F). 2. Adopt the attached Resolution for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the land use designation for an approximately 13,200 square foot (sq. ft.) site from Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel (Attachment A). CMR: 357:09 Page 1 of6 3. Adopt the attached Ordinance to change the site's zone district from RM-15 Multi- Family to CS(L)(D) Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts (Attachment B). BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a City-initiated rezoning of a small portion of a 139,010 sq. ft. parcel of land (Dinah's Hotel property) having two zone districts: RM-15 (Multiple-Family), and CS(H) (Service Commercial with Hotel Combining District). The vacant and unimproved 13,200 sq. ft. portion of the parcel is proposed to be rezoned to the CS(L)(D) Service Commercial zone with Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts. The site is also proposed for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Multiple-Family Residential to Comnlercial Hotel, to be consistent with the proposed commercial zone. The project site is an undeveloped portion of the parcel located at the rear of the Dinah's Hotel property. This rear "panhandle" strip has a narrow 39.9 feet of frontage on Wilkie Way, with a depth of329.8 feet. The subject area to be rezoned is approximately 9% of the overall lot area. The remainder (91 % of the site), where the hotel is located, would remain as currently zoned (CS-H). The CS Service Commercial Zoning District was modified in 2005, as part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update, to allow hotel uses, at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2: 1. The Hotel (H) Combining District is no longer necessary for hotel use on properties zoned CS. DISCUSSION The CS Service Commercial zone designation is intended to create and maintain areas for citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian oriented shopping areas, and which are more automobile-oriented. Mixed use development is allowable . in the CS zone, when designed in accordance with context-based design criteria with up to 30 residential units per acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 1: 1 for all uses. The proposed Commercial Service land use designation allows facilities, such as hotels and motels, along with associated conference centers, restaurants, and other similar uses. The existing RM -15 zone generally allows residential development up to 15 units per acre, with single-family and multiple-family housing that is compatible with lower density and residential districts nearby. The Multiple Family Residential land use designation generally allows residential projects having densities ranging from eight to 40 units per acre and eight to 90 persons per acre. The panhandle area was zoned RM -15 to provide a buffer of less intensive uses between the commercial uses on the site and the single-family neighborhood to the rear. Proposed Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Changes The zoning and Comprehensive Plan changes proposed for this portion of the Dinah's Hotel site would provide zoning that is consistent with the remainder of the site, and would allow for increased floor area (approximately 5,280 square feet of commercial development or 26,400 square feet of hotel) on that remainder area, with frontage on EI Camino Real. Imposing the landscape and design review combining districts, however, will ensure that the portion to be rezoned would serve as a landscape buffer to the adjacent neighborhood (Charleston Meadows). CMR: 357:09 Page 2 of6 Proposed PedestrianlBicyc1e Easenlent In March of 2008, the Council directed staff to study ways to obtain access rights on the subject site to connect to a pedestrian/bicyc1e path easement across the Redwood Gate residential development site, offered by SummerHill Homes. SummerHill Homes had agreed to dedicate a public path from the property line shared with the Dinah's Hotel site to the public park on the Redwood Gate site, provided the City obtained access rights. The deadline for the City to obtain those rights is September 24, 2009. The intent is to allow pedestrian or bicycle access to enhance more direct connectivity to the public park on the Redwood Gate site. Dinah's owners have agreed to dedicate such an easement, and the signed copy is attached for Council information (Attachment E). The zoning is not contingent upon the easement, but the easement will not be recorded until the rezoning is approved. Subsequent development of the pathway is not funded or scheduled at this time. When development does occur, the design will require public review per the Site and Design zoning. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On July 8,2009, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) voted 6-0-1 to initiate the zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment. The PTC held a public hearing on the redesignation proposal on August 12,2009 and unanimously voted (7-0) to recommend that the City Council (1) approve the Negative Declaration and (2) adopt the resolution for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the land use designation from Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel; and (3) adopt the ordinance to change the site's zone district from RM-15 Multi-Family to CS(L)(D) Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts. The staffreports and minutes of the July 8 and August 12, 2009 meetings are attached. Five area residents spoke on the item. Three speakers strongly supported the rezoning and pathway construction. One resident opposed the rezoning because he believed that if the pathway is built, it would increase overflow parking on Wilkie Way. The president of the Charleston Meadows Association Board of Directors also spoke on behalf of the association. She stated that the association supported the ·rezoning and pathway provided that measures are put in place to prevent parking impacts on Wilkie Way and other surrounding streets prior to the pathway being opened to the public. As mentioned above, development of the pathway would be subject to a subsequent site and design review process. The Charleston Meadows Association made the following requests of the City to: 1. Implement a permit parking system for the neighborhood prior to opening any public pathway to the adj acent park at Redwood Gate 2. Require the property owner of Dinah's Hotel to fund the permit parking system 3. Plant redwoods and oaks on the subject site so that the City's requirements to protect redwoods and oak trees would make it infeasible to construct a vehicular path without removing the protected trees. A copy of the PTC minutes will be incorporated into the file as documentation of the items staff has agreed to work on with the area residents for the subject site. Staff will work with the residents to study a permit parking system for this neighborhood prior to the construction of any pathway improvements. Because the construction of a pathway will require a conditional use CMR: 357:09 Page 3 of6 permit and Site and Design review, a process will be in place to provide a forum for further public review and discussion of issues such as landscape design and pennit parking. Since the City is the applicant for this rezoning, there is no legal nexus to require the property owner of Dinah's Hotel to fund the pennit parking system. However, if and when an application is submitted to redevelop the hotel site, a review of potential mitigation measures will be appropriate. The intent is to develop the panhandle site for pedestrian and bicycle connections only. The proposed Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts contain provisions for mUltiple reviews, including a requirement for a conditional use pennit and Site and Design review, and public processes to ensure the design of any improvements would meet the City's goals. The public processes will provide opportunities for input from the public. Staff is supportive of planting of redwoods and oaks on the site, provided that the landscaping is appropriate for maintaining pedestrian and bicycle connections. ECONOMIC IMPACT The Dinah's Hotel currently generates significant transient occupancy tax revenue for the General Fund. Rezoning of the panhandle area could result in up to 26,400 additional square feet of hotel floor space, or up to 5,280 square feet of non-hotel commercial floor space, beyond the maximum otherwise allowed. Developing the increment for hotel use would likely generate considerably more revenue for the General Fund than would development for non-hotel use. Either type of development would generate additional annual resources in the form of property, sales, and utility user taxes. Additional hotel square footage would also add transient occupancy tax revenue to the General Fund. Total annual revenues from these sources are projected to range from as little as $2,000 to as much as $220,000. Staff is not aware of any redevelopment plans at this time, but the extent and type of future redevelopment would likely have a more significant impact than the increment of development associated with the area to be rezoned. Development plans that do not include equivalent hotel rooms on site may have a substantial negative impact on City resources while intensified hotel use or some kinds of retail at higher intensities than now exist may enhance revenues considerably. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Staff believes that the proposed changes would facilitate the achievement of several goals, policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan. The changes would not only bring consistency to the designations of the entire parcel, but would promote an appropriate transition between the more intense commercial uses appropriate for parcels along EI Camino Real and the less intense residential parcels of the new Redwood Gate development and the Wilkie Way residences. The new designations would encourage pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between the neighboring properties and the new Redwood Gate public park, while protecting adjacent properties with the requirement for adequate landscaping. CMR: 357:09 Page 4 of6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues related to the rezoning, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was subject to a 20-day public review period, beginning on July 23,2009. A copy of the environmental document is provided as Attachnlent F. No comments have been received on the document. The Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration must be approved prior to the Council decision on this proj ect. PREPARED BY: ELENA LEE Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD: Cl~ \jJ&<t~M CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Transportation CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment I: Attachment J: Attachment K: Attachment L: Attachment M: Attachment N: Attachment 0: CMR: 357:09 Draft Comprehensive Plan Resolution Draft Ordinance Amending Zoning Map Parcel (Zoning) Map Comprehensive Plan Map Proposed Easement Agreement and Plat Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration July 8,2009 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (without attachments) and Minutes August 12,2009 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (without attachments) and Minutes PAMC Chapter 18.16 (CS Service Commercial) PAMC Chapter 18.30(E) Landscape (L) Combining District P AMC Chapter 18.30(G) Site and Design Review (D) Combining District Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Service Commercial Land Use Designation Definition Excerpt of Transportation Section of Resolution No. 8432 for the Hyatt Rickey's Development EIR Letter from Subject Property Owner Letter from the Charleston Meadow Association Board of Directors Page 5 of6 COURTESY COPIES: Martha Miller, Administrative Services Department, Real Estate David Conklin, Property Owner Representative Sara Annstrong, President, Charleston Meadows Association CMR: 357:09 Page 6 of6 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A Resolution No. --- Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting an Amel1dment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use Designation for 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real From Multiple Family to Commercial Hotel WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing on August 12, 2009 recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of said recommendation after duly noticed public hearing, the Council desires to amend said plan as hereinafter set forth; The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region would be furthered by an amendment of the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation of the area depicted in Exhibit A from Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel. Exhibit A is attached to this resolution and incorporated into it by this reference. II II II II II II II II 1 090825 syn 0120400 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. The COlUlcil finds that the adoption of this resolution will have no significant adverse environmental impact. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney 090825syn 0120400 2 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and CommlUlity Environment Legend abc County Boundaries (KM) Land Use Designation: Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential _ Service Commercial _ Commercial Hotel _ Public Park c::J Parcel 148-01-005 _ Land Use Designation Change to Commercial Hote ::::~ City Jurisdictional Limits The City of Palo Alto n1vera, 2009-09-02 14:24:57 Parcel 148-01-005 Land Use Designation Change · to Commerical Hotel .. r . r··--···--j L x-I n :.. -----·1 I \ i>-.. I : I ----.-.-.:.r1 .\ il \ ; 11 L I r .. --. l._.JI.:._ .•.... __ J This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS -. o· 300' ThIs document Is a graphic representation only of best available sources. dlnahscourt al v090209 gp (I\cc-maps~Is$\gIs\admln\Personallrrtvera.mdb) The City 01 Palo Allo assumes no responsibilty for any error.@198910 2009 City of Palo Allo NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT B Ordinance No. ---- Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to Change the Zone Designation for Approximately 0.30 Acre at 4261 and 4273 El Camino Real, from RM-15 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential to Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts (CS(L)(D)) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows: A. The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on August 12, 2009 has recomnlended that the City Council rezone approximately 0.30 acre of land at 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real from "RM-15 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential" to "CS(L)(D) Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts"; B. The Planning and Transportation Commission has reviewed the facts presented at the public hearing, including public testimony and reports and recommendations from the director of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff; C. The Planning and Transportation Commission finds that rezoning the parcel to Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining District (CS(L)(D» zoning is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is recommended to be Commercial Hotel; and D. The Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on ______ , and has reviewed the environmental documents prepared for the project and all other relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter. SECTION 2. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare would be furthered by an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in Section 3. SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to place 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real, 0.30 acre of land, within the "CS(L)(D) Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts." 1 090825syn 0120399 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 4. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property; therefore, the project would have no significant impact on the environment. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney 090825syn 0120399 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 2 <. --"--~ ... ,., ...... ,. h --.I.· -,./ i :"-:---Sil .. \· .. :~ .'\\~L.\t ) E \\;j; ~. . ,; . ! .. ~ , .-... " ... : •.. J .• ' .............. Legend c::::J Parcel 148-01-005 abc Zone District Labels c::::J Zone Districts ':J1~;::j Proposed Rezone and Land Use Designation Change The C ity or Palo Alto ATTACHMENT C Proposed Rezon ing and Land Use Designation Change Parcel 148-01-005 Zoning District Map This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS -. o· ThiS document is a g/aptuc tepr1!'sentallon on1y of baStt 8T3" a'ble sOu/ces The City 0' Palo Alia assumes no respansibihly for any euars Cl1989 10 2009 Cily of Palo Alia The City of Palo Alto n1Vera, 200!l-06-22 19:10:12 (\ICCofI1spslgls$lglsladminlPersonallrrlvera.mdb) Legend Land Use Designation: Single Family Res Multi-Family Res _ Service Commercial _ Hotel Commercial _ PublicPark ATTACHMENT 0 , Multi-Family Res (w/Hotel Overlay) t::J Parcel 148-01-005 ...... , " ...... Proposed Rezone and Land Use Designation Change Proposed Rezoning and Land Use Designation Change Parcel 148-01-005 Land Use Designation Map This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS -. 0' 300' this document Is a graphic representallon only of best available soun:es. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility lor any errors C1989 to 2009 City of Palo Alto • Legend c:::::::J Parcel 148-01-005 _ Subject Public Access Easement :::::: ~ Proposed Rezone and Land Use Designation Change Park .-•• -I! ..... -" Proposed Path The City of Palo Alto ntvera,2OO9-07-07 11:20:29 (\lcc-maps~Is$\gIs\admlnlPersonallnfvera.mdb ) Proposed Rezoning and Land Use Designation Change Parcel 148-01-005 Area Map This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS -. 0' 180' This documenlis a graphic representallon only of besl avaDable sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors @1989 to 2009 City of Palo Alto Recorded at Request of and When Recorded Mail to: City of Palo AltolReal Estate 250 Hamilton Avenue PO Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 ATTACHMENT E SPACE ABOVE TInS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Assessor's Parcel Number: 148-01-005 Property Address: 4261 EI Camino Real Project No.: AE 08/01 Easement Agreement This Easement Agreement (this "Agreement") is made this day 2009, by and between DINAH'S HOTEL, a California corporation ("Grantor"), and the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a municipal corporation ("Grantee"). Recitals A. Grantor owns that certain real property located in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State ofCalifomia, referenced as assessor's parcel number 148-01-005 (the "Property"). B. Grantor is requesting that zoning of the Property be changed from zoning map designation RM-15 to zoning map designation CS(L)(D) (the "Zoning Change"). C. Contingent on the enactment of the Zoning Change, Grantor desires to grant to Grantee and Grantee desires to acquire the Easement Property (as defmed below) in order to build a public walkway. B. Grantee plans to permit members of the public pedestrian and/or bicycle access across the Easement Property. Agreement For valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 1. Public Access Easement. Subject to Section 2 below, Grantor, as the owner of the Property, grants to Grantee for use of its employees, agents, operators, licensees, invitees and contractors (collectively, the "Grantee Parties"), a non-exclusive easement, subject to the conditions, obligations and rights set forth in this Agreement: (i) to build and maintain a public walkway, landscaping and related improvements on that certain portion of Property as shown and described in Exhibit A attached hereto (collectively, the "Easement Property "), and (ii) to provide members of the public pedestrian and/or bicycle access to, from, over, along and across the Easement Property. 2. Zoning Change. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the foregoing grant of the Easement Property contained in Section 1 above is contingent upon the enactment of the Zoning Change without appeal or challenge. The parties hereby agree that in no event shall this Agreement be effective or recorded until the Zoning Change has been enacted and all applicable appeal and challenge periods relating thereto have expired without appeal or challenge being filed. In the event the Zoning Change is not enacted with respect to the Property, the parties hereby agree that this Agreement shall be of no further force or effect. 3. No Vehicular Use. The Easement Property shall be used for pedestrian and bicycle use only and vehicular use shall be prohibited, except for emergency vehicles use (frre and police). 4. Grading and Drainage. Grantee shall provide, at its sole cost and expense, the appropriate soil grading and drainage improvements for the Easement Property, which shall be performed as part of the construction of the walkway improvements and in accordance with the plans and specifications as approved by Grantor. In no event shall Grantor be responsible for providing soil grading and drainage improvements with respect to the Property and if such improvements are made necessary as a result of the use of the Easement Property or Grantee's improvements thereto, as Grantor may determine in its reasonable discretion after meeting and conferring with Grantee, Grantee shall reimburse Grantor for all of the reasonable costs and expenses (to be determined after meeting and conferring with Grantee) associated with such improvements for the Property. . 5. Construction and Maintenance Obligations. Grantee accepts and bears full responsibility, at its sole cost and expense, for the design, construction, reconstruction, landscaping and maintenance of the Easement Property in accordance with the below obligations or Grantor's reasonable direction. Maintenance obligations shall include, without limitation: (i) resurfacing, restriping, sealing, cleaning and providing and/or maintaining appropriate soil grading and drainage improvements for the Easement Property; and (ii) cleaning and ensuring the safety of the Easement Property. Grantee shall maintain the Easement Property so as not to interfere with Grantor's business operations and in no event shall Grantor have any maintenance obligations or be responsible for providing any repairs, improvements or landscaping to the Property in connection with the use of the Easement Property or otherwise as a consequence of this Grant of Easement. If repairs or special maintenance to the Property becomes necessary as a result of Grantee's construction, maintenance, improvements, landscaping or lack thereof to the Easement Property, as Grantor may determine in its reasonable discretion after meeting and conferring with Grantee, Grantee shall reimburse Grantor for all of the reasonable costs and expenses (to be determined after meeting and conferring with Grantee) associated with performing such work with respect to the Property. 6. Duration. The covenants created herein shall be perpetual, unless modified pursuant to Paragraph 10 below. 7. Indemnification. Grantee shall hold harmless, indemnify, protect and defend Grantor and its employees, agents, operators, licensees, invitees and contractors (the "Grantor Parties") against any claim, demand, action, cause of action, damage, loss, liability, cost and expense (including reasonable attorneys' fees) that arises out of or results from the use or misuse of the Easement Property by the Grantee Parties or any member of the public, except that Grantor shall not be indemnified for willful misconduct or gross negligence of the Grantor . Parties. 8. Insurance. During the term of this Agreement, Grantee shall maintain commercia11iability insurance in an amount and form reasonably acceptable to Grantor, which coverage shall include a contractual endorsement with respect to the promises of hold harmless, indemnification, protection and defense made by Grantee herein and name Grantor and other parties reasonably designated by Grantor as an additional insured. Grantor acknowledges that Grantee is currently self-insured in an amount up to $1,000,000 and is a member of ACCEL municipal risk pool for amounts between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000. Grantor acknowledges that these limits are currently sufficient, and agrees not to request additional coverage for three years from the date of this Agreement. 9. Binding Effect. The rights, obligations, terms and conditions of the easement, covenants and restrictions described in this Agreement shall run with the Property and shall be binding upon the Property and its owner( s) and upon their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon Grantee and its successors and assigns. 10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 11. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by an instrument in writing signed and acknowledged by Grantee and the owner( s) of the Property and recorded in the Official Records of the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 12. Prohibition of Assignment. Grantee shall have no right to assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of Grantor, which Grantor may withhold in its sole and absolute discretion. In the event of any purported assignment of this Agreement by Grantee, without Grantor's prior written consent, this Agreement shall automatically terminate. 13. Attorneys' Fees. If there is any legal action or proceeding between Grantor and Grantee arising from or based on this Agreement, the unsuccessful party to such action or proceeding shall pay to the prevailing party all reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by such prevailing party in such action or proceeding and in any appeal in connection therewith. If such prevailing party recovers a judgment in any such action, proceeding or appeal, such costs, expenses and attorneys' fees shall be included in and as a part of such judgment. 15. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same Agreement. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank. Signatures on Following Page.] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first hereinabove written. GRANTOR: DINAH'S HOTEL, a California corporation BY:~_""~"'~~ Name: ~ .• D.M~ Title: _ GRANTEE: CITY OF PALO ALTO, a municipal corporation By: ____________________ _ Name: -------------------Title: ______________ _ APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: PUBLIC WORKS By: ____________ _ Name: ----~---------Title: _____________ _ APPROVED AS TO FORM: SR. ASST. CITY ATTORNEY This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the within deed or grant to the City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer or agent on behalf of the Council of the City of Palo Alto, pursuant to authority conferred by resolution of the said Council adopted on March 15, 1971, and the City of Palo Alto consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated ------------------- Approved as to Form Sr. Asst. City Attorney Electric By: __________________ _ State of Q~iUA.I ) County of ~ ~~) By: ________________________ __ City Manager APPROVALS Approved as to Content Administrative Services Department: By: ________________________ __ Acknowledgements On ~~ q! 200'1 before me,.----=J~4\:..E.L~~-dl..!i'5~~!..!::::....t_~~~O~U4__~~~ personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) w se name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislher/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. ~ I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of ~U'f1UAl.l that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. ~ and official seal. Signature ------li-~---------(Seal) JOYCE NELSEN COMM. # 1604511 NOTARY PUBLIC 4 CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA COUNTY COMM. EXPIRES OCt Smreof ______________ ~) County of __________ ) On ______________________ beforeme,,------------____________________ ~ (here insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislher/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the Smre foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature _______________________ (Seal) that the ------- Exhibit A Description and Map of Easement Property (Please see attached.) 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT 'At PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT (P.A.E.) All that certain portion of Parcel 2as described in the Certificate of Compliance (Lot Line Adjustment) recorded on January 2, 2001 as Document No. 15514888 of Official Records of the County of Santa Clara, said parcel of land situate in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, more particularly described as follows~ BEGINNING at the most northerly corner of said Parcel 2, said point being on the southwesterly line of Wilkie Way, being 60 feet wide; thence along a northeasterly line and southeasterly line of said Parcel 2 the following two (2) courses: 1) South 32° 43'30" East. 40~OO feet and 2) South 42° 12' 30,t West. 130.00 feet; thence leaving said southeasterly line, North 32° 43/ 30" West, 40.00 feet to a point on the general northwesterly line of said Parcel 2; thence along the northwesterly line of said Parcel 2, North 42° 12' 30" East, 130.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. P.A.E. contains an area. of 0.115 acres (5,021 square feet), more or less. This easement is not a subdivision and creates no new parcel. P.A.E. is shown on attached plat Exhibit B and made a part hereof. END OF DESCRIPTION This description is based upon record information contained in that certain Certificate of Compliance (Lot Line Adjustment) parcel of land described as Parcel 2, recorded on January 2, 2001 as Document No. 15514888 of Official RecordSI Santa Clara County records. APN: 148-01-005 Kristina D. Comerer, PLS 6766 License expires: September 30, 2010 Date: 5 0\ PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT 'B' 1RAC1 No. 9938 BK. 8J7 M JO & H ....J W q: 1RAc1 NO. 9989 B1<. 824 M 46 Be 41 LOT 2 PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT :rat INGRESS/EGRESS 4273 EL CAMINO REAL rOlNAWS SHACK PALO ALTO. CAUFORNtA 1~056 O.R. 434 PARCEL C LOT J N 42"12'30" E l/ • 130.00 ~ r -. °0 0'" "'{' - - -_148-01-0~ --''''.0---------0 h O/!!. 1Y -1 LANDS OF OINAHS HOTEL i/~· d ."fIo . ....., 0 ~ f8 T DOC. NO. 1235533 PI 130.00 .. ~ lJ ~ ~ . S 42·12:"30" W CIj ~ .:s-:s .!tj P.A.E. ~~~~~ /: !:J -::-J a -. :o-l 148-01-009 (0.115 AC. + /_) 14~ "'fO"/Y LANDS OF LEGALLET (5.021 SO. FT. +/_) .. IE 0 ~ <: ~ DOC. NO. 14091100 J ~ 0 -.1 0' It. o SCi /~ LEGEND -----BOUNDARY LINE -----STREET CENTERLINE - - - -NEW EASEMENT LINE ----EXISllNG EASEMENT SURVEYOR'S STAlEMENT ~/ !:!! ;s' !!il I I / / lftlS MAP CORRECll. YREPRESENTS. A SURVEY .MADE BY ME OR VNom MY DfREClION IN CONFORMANCE Wlm THE REQUIREMENTS OF mE PROfESSIONAL LAND SUR\1::YORS' ACT AT mE REQUEST OF MARTHA MillER. AT 111E CITY OF PALO AlTO. IN JULY 2009. SCALE: 1" = 50' \.«< ~-£"'\ .';"'; .(~'-",. ~ ; r¥-)j·, '.'::' ........& .. \."...,. - KRISDNA O. COMERER. PLS 6166 UCENSE EXPIRES: September 30. 2010 DA~: __ ~~~~~~~~ CROSS LAND SURV£YING. INC .. 2210 MT.. PLEASANT ROAD SAN dOSE. CA 95148 (408) 274-7994 PROJECT NO. 09-17 Ci ty of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2441 FAX (650) 329-2154 www.cityofpaloalto.org Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT F A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code 21,000, et sec.) that the followin ro'ect will not have a si ificant effect on the environment. 09PLN-00144 07-03-09 Dinah's Hotel Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Dinah's Hotel 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA (I) An Amendment to the Zoning Map to Change the Zone Designation of a 13,200 square foot portion of Dinah's Hotel property from the RM-15 (Residential Multi-Family) Zone to the CS(L)(D) (Service Commercial with Landscape and Site & Design Combining Districts and (2) a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of the same property from Multiple Family Residential to i Commercial Hotel Notice is hereby given that a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment for the project listed above. In accordance with A.B. 866, this document will be available for review and comment during a minimum 20-day inspection period. rllbli~R¢v.i¢WPeljiQd':';in$i:~[iid'~,::,Jl~K .... ~a,;.:tbll9· Public Comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this negative declaration are invited and must be received on or before the hearing date. Such comments should be based on specific . environmental concerns. Written comments should be addressed to the City of Palo Alto. Oral comments may be made at the hearing. A file containing additional information on this project may be reviewed at the Planning Office under the file number appearing at the top of this form. For additional information regarding this project and the Negative Declaration, please contact Elena Lee at (650) 617-3196 (1) Palo Alto Planning Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (2) Palo Alto Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Resonsihle Aenciessent.3co dftliisdocument County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder Prepared by: Signature Date Approved by: rENV~RONM NTAl HECKllST FOR Cuty of Palo Alto and CommQ1] Envoronment PROJECT DESCRIPTION 10 ]PROJECT TITLE Dinah Hotel Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment Palo Alto, California 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto) CA 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Elena Lee City of Palo Alto (650) 617-3196 4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto) CA 94301 5. APPLICATION NUMBER 09PLN-00144 6. PROJECT LOCATION 4261 and 4273 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA Parcel Numbers: 148-01-005 The project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of State Route 82 (EI Camino Real), as shown on Figure 1, Regional Map. The site is located east of EI Camino Real and north of . Dinah's Court, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map. The project site is a vacant 13,200 sq. ft. portion of an overall 3.19 acre site occupied by the Dinah's Hotel and Trader Vic's restaurant. 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The project site is designated as Multiple Family Residential in the Palo Alto ] 998 -2010 Comprehensive P1an. This land use designation includes a residential density range of 8 to 40 units and' 8-90 persons per acre. The actual permitted number of housing units can vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping centers and environmental problems. Higher densities than what is permitted by zoning may be allowed where lueasureable community uses will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be compatible with the overall Comprehensive Plan. The remainder of the property where the subject site is located is designated as Commercial Hotel in the Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Commercial Hotel designation allows facilities for use by temporary overnight occupants on a transient basis, such as hotels and motels, along with associated conference centers and other similar uses. Restaurants and other eating . facilities, meeting rooms, personal services, small retail and other services ancillary to the hotel are also allowed. The proposed project would redesignate the portion of the site that has a Multiple Family Residential Comprehensive Plan designation to Commercial Hotel to match the remainder of the property. This parcel has limited and narrow street frontage with significant depth and therefore is not suitable for residential use. 8. ZONING The project site is zoned RM-] 5, Multi-Family residentiaL This designation is a low-density multi-family residential zoning district intended to create, preserve and enhance areas for a mix of single-family and multiple-family housing, compatible with lower density and residential districts nearby, including single-family residence districts. This district also serves as a transition to moderate density multiple-family districts or districts with non-residential uses. Pennitted denshies in the RM -] 5 district range from eight to fifteen dwelling units per acre. The remainder of the property where the subject site is located has a zoning designation of CS(H), Service Commercial with a Hotel Combining District. The Service COlumercial designation is one intended to create and maintain areas accommodating citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian oriented shopping areas, and which generally require automotive access for customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment, loading or unloading, or parking of commercial service vehicles. The H Hotel Combining District is intended to modifY the regulations of the service commercial and community commercial districts specifically to pem1it hotels in the service commercial and community commercial districts. It would enable development of up to a 06. to 1 floor area ratio, with a conditional use permit, and subject to site and design review. The proposed project would rezone the RM-15 portion of the site to CS(L)(D) Service COlnmercial with a Landscape Combining District and a Site and Design Review Combining District. The CS Service Comlnercial designation would be consistent with the designations of the rest of the larger property. The CS zoning district was modified recently to incorporate the provisions of the H Hotel Combining District, so a separate H Combining District is no longer required to allow hotels as a permitted use. The L Landscape Combining District would provide regulations to ensure the provision of landscaped open space as a physical and visuai separation between residential districts to the north and west and more intensive commercial or industrial uses, and in other selected locations where landscaped buffers are desirable. The D Site and Design Review Combining District is intended to provide a process for review and approval of development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established comlnunity areas which nlay be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the gen~ral vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4261 EI Camino Real: Review and Recommendation of a request for (1) an Amendment to the Zoning Map to Change the Zone Designation of a 13,200 square foot portion of Dinah's Hotel property from the RM-15 (Residentia] Multi-Family) Zone to the CS(L)(D) (Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining District, and (2) a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of the same property from Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel at 4261 EI Caniino Real. The intent of this project is to allow redevelopment of the project site suitable to adjacent uses. The current Comprehensive Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential and the zoning designation of RM-15 Multi-Fami]y Residential would only allow residential development. Because the rest of the property has a commercial zoning designation and commercial use, a residential use in a smaIl portion of the site is not feasible. The narrow but configuration of the lot would limit the potentia] development of the site as a residential use. The redesignation of the site would allow the development of a pedestrian/bicycle path from Wilkie Way, through the subject property, to connect to a public access easement on the neighboring SummerHill residential development. A subsequent CEQA review document would be prepared and circulated for any new development resulting from this rezoning. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The property is located in a fully developed part of the City. Surrounding uses include the new SummerHill residential deve]oplnent and Lodge to the north; El Camino Real, the Dinah's Hotel and Trader Vic's restaurant to the west; single family residential and Wilkie Way to the east; and multi-family residential to the south. 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES ® County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder ENVJIRONMJENT AIL CHECKILIST AND DISCUSSKON OF KMP ACTS EVALUATION OF ENV]RONMENTAL ]MPACT§ ]) 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 app]y to projects like the one inv01ved (e. g. the project faUs outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based OID project-specific factors as wen as general standards (e. g. the project win 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) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation n1easures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a 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 or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Identify and state where they are available for review. b) 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 plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the 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) 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 Jess than significance. DliSCUSSliON OF JIMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identity environmental impacts, which could occur the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the check1ist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measUres that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information I Sources Potentially Potentially .lLess Than Resources Signi.ficant Significant Significant i Issues Unless Impact Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its x surroundings? 1,2,3 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a No Impact public view or view corridor? 1,2 x J\;iap L4, 3 c) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within 1,2 a state scenic highway? Map L4,3 i d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan \ policies regarding visual resources? 2 e) Create a new source of su bstantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1,2,3 f) Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.rn. from September 21 to March 21 ? i I DISCUSSION: The proposed changes do not include any specific development. Although the subject parcel is vacant, it is located in an area that is completely developed with a mix of housing and hotel/commercial support uses. In accordance with CEQA, any future redevelopment plan would be reviewed under the category of aesthetics, to ensure new construction would be appropriate and compatible with the site and surrounding development, and any site improvements would be harmonious and appropriate to any new building. Any redevelopment under the proposed CS(L)(D) zone and Commercial Hotel Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation would be required to meet the provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to meeting the development standards of the proposed CS(D)(L) zone, the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the elimination of glare and Jight x x x x spillover beyond the perimeter of the development. Information regarding lighting is required with any project application. The proposed L Landscape Combining District is intended to ensure the provision of landscaped open space as a barrier between the adjacent residential uses and the hotel or other commercial use. This combining district will provide for the appropriate separation and aesthetic treatment consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed D Site and Design Review Combining District would require a review process to ensure that development is done in a manner that is environmentally and ecologically compatible and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies. The proposed walkway would be required to meet the provisions of the new zoning designation. Mitigation Measures: None Required B. AGRICULTURAL 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 agrkulture and farmland. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation incorporated a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 1,2,3 Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Contlict with existing zoning for agricultural ],2 Map c) use, or a Williamson Act contract? L9,3 r' Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could resu It in con version of 1 Farmland, to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: The site is not located in a "Prilne Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, 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. Mitigation Measures: None Required X X X c. AIR QlJJALrfV ]ssues and Supporting Xnformation Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact I Would the project: llssues Unless Impact ( Mitigation Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation X of the applicable air quaJity plan (J 982 Bay 1,2,3 Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute x substantially to an existing or projected air 1,2,3 quaJity violation indicated by the foJlowing: 1. Direct and/or indirect operational x emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management Distrjct (BAAQIVID) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PMIO); 11. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) x concentrations exceedi'ng the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a) project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to dechne to D, E or F; or c) project would increase I traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an x applicable federal or state ambient air quality 1,2,3 standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone j.JIVVUl;:'Vl.:i)? i I d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels .x ~~ air contaminants? 1,2,3 i. Probability of contracting cancer for the X Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) exceeds lOin one million 11. Ground-level concentrations of non-x carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEl e) Create vb. Jlldh odors affecting a I 1 X substantial number of people? i -- . Issues and Supporting information R.esources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than f) Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Not implement all applicable construction x emission control measures recommended jn the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? -, ----" DISCUSSJION: The subject site is in a developed area of mixed uses including commercial and residential uses. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the property is not located in an area that contains uses or activities that are major pollutant emitters. The rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and pedestrian/bicycle path are not expected to result in a significant impact on air quality. The project does not include any specific development proposals. It is not anticipated that a redevelopment project on the 13,200-sq. ft. parcel under the proposed Commercial Hotel COlnprehensive Plan designation and the CS(L)(D) zoning would be of a scale or use as to effect any regional air quabty plan or standards, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Any redevelopment proposal' would be evaluated in a project-specific environmental analysis for potential effects on air quality. The analysis could study the potential ilnpacts of new construction on the site, any increase in emissions due to new construction on the site and any cumulative from the project, given recent and future projects in the area. Any redeveloplnent proposal on the parcel would not be allowed to generate substantial pollutant concentrations. Mitigation Measures: None D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significa n t Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) 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 1,2,5 x plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, 1,2,5 x policies, regulations, including 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 interru'Qtion, or other means? c) Interfere substantially with the movement of x any native resident or migratory fish or wi ldlife or with establlshed native resident or 1,2,5 No Impact No Impact I bsues and Supporting Information Resources I Sll'otentiallY Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant WouJd the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation ! incorporated migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances e) protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of 1,2,3,5 Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.1 O)? Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natura] Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 1,2,3,5 regional, or state habitat conservation plan? I DISCUSSION: The project site is located in an established urban area with no riparian or tree habitat for the candidate, sensitive, or special status species in the area. No endangered, threatened, or rare animals, insects and plant species have been identified at this site. Future development proposals would be subject to a subsequent environmental review per CEQA requirements and wilJ be required to comply with Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance, the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan. Mitigation Measures: None E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources S(/'urces Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cu ltural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource 1,2 pursuant to 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1 interred outside of formal cemetedes? e) Adversel y affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City's 1,2 Histonc InVCl1tVl j? f) Eliminate important examples )fmajor periods of California history or 1--'1 dH;::'LVl Y No ]mpact I x x No Impact x x x x ])TISC1IJ§S]ON : The COlnprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a moderate archaeological resource sensitivity zone. Most of the City area east of Interstate 280 is designated in this zone. Although existing and historic development has altered the native landscape, the potential exists that now-buried Native American sites could be uncovered in future planning area construction. The site has not been designated as a historic resource. Because there is no specific development, other than a pedestrian/bicycle path, associated with this project, no impact would be expected on potential cultural resources. Future development would be subject to a subsequent CEQA review and the City's standard conditions of approval, which will ensure that any cultural resources affected would be handled properly, in accordance to local, state and federal regulati ons. Mitigation Measures: None Required!. F. GEOLOGY~ SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information iuun.:~:s Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significan t Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the See risk of loss, injury, or death involving: below i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, x as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on 1 other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? , 2,3 x iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? x IV) Landslides? 2,3 x b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss I of topsoil? 1,2,3 x c) Result in substantial siltation? x d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that 1S I 2,3 unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral x spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 2,3 Table 18-1-B of-the Uniform Building No Impact --- I Code (1994)) creating substantial risks to I life or property? f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of sep6c tanks or alternative waste water disposal systelTIS 1)2) where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? g) Expose people or property to major x geologic hazards that cannot be'mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? I DISCUSSION: The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. According to the Comprehensive Plan the project site is not in an area that is subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake or in an area subject to expansive soils, surface rupture, liquefaction, or earthquake induced landslides. However, no specific development proposals, other than the redesignations and pedestrian/bicycle path are part of the subject project. Development of any future projects would be required to implement any recommendations of a geotechnical report and associated mitigation measures as may be imposed, and conform to all requirements in the Uniform Building Code, which includes provisions to ensure that the design and construction of all buildings includes provisions to resist damage from earthquakes to the extent feasible and acceptable. The potential onsite exposure to geological hazards will therefore be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: None Required. G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDO'US MATERIALS Sources Less Than No x x I Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Significant Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routjng transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or 1)2,3 1,2,3 waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or ] ,2,3 proposed school? d) Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials e) of hazardous i Unless Mitigation Incor orated Impact x x x x to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 1,2,3 x result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, whhin two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a x safety hazard for people residing or working in 1 the project area? g) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety x hazard for people residing or working the 1 project area? h) Impair implementation of or pbysically i) j) interfere with an adopted emergency response 1,2 plan or emergency evacuation plan? x Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to x urbanized areas or where residences are 2 intermixed with wildlands? Create a significant hazard to the public or the 2 x environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the sjte? ., DISCUSSION: There is no redevelopment proposed with the rezoning, amendment to the land use designation and pedestrian/bicycle path. The property is vacant. Hazardous materials have not been used or stored on site. Any future development would be subject to a subsequent CEQA review, the imposition of any mitigation measures and the City)s conditions of approval to prevent any negative impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials. Mitigation Measures: None H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No I Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Violate any water qual1ty standards or waste discharge requirements? 1,2,3 x b) 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 2,3 groundwater table level 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 perm its have I been granted)? c) 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 I erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1,2,3 d) 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 1,2,3 in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted 1,2 runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,2 g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1,2,3 h) Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect i flood flows? i i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, jncluding flooding as a result of the failure of a 1,2,3Map levee or dam or being located within a 100-year N6 x flood hazard area? N8,12 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2 I I i k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,2 DISCUSSION: Any proposed development project would need to comply with City, State and Federal standards pertaining to water quality and waste discharge, and stonn water run-off. It is not anticipated that development under the proposed zone would substantially deplete groundwater supplies, nor substantiaJly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. There is no redevelopment, other than a pedestrian/bicycle path proposed with the rezoning and amendment to the land use designation. Any redevelopment project would be evaluated for potential effects on the environment in a separate, site- specific environmental document. Mitigation Measures: None Required. X x x X x x X x l LAND USE AND JPLAr~lNliNG Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Significant WouJd the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2,3 x b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, c) d) e) f) g) policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local X coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an 1,2,3 environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community 1 conservation plan? x Substantially adversely change the type or X intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with X the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? Conflict with established residential, X recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? Convert prime fannland, unique farmland, or X fannland of statewide importance (farmland) to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: Land Use The project site is designated as Multiple Family Residential in the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 COlnprehensive Plan. This land use designation includes a residential density range of 8 to 40 units and 8- 90 persons per acre. The actual permitted number of housing units can vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping centers and environmental problems. Higher densities than what is pennitted by zoning may be allowed where measureab1e community uses will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect wlll be compatible with the overall Comprehensive Plan. The remainder of the property where the subject site is located is designated as Commercial Hotel in the Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Commercial Hotel designation al10ws facilities for use by temporary overnight occupants on a transient basis, such as hotels and motels, along with associated conference centers and other sllnilar uses. Restaurants and other eating facilities, meeting rooms, personal services, small retail and other services ancillary to the hotel are also allowed. The proposed project would redesignate the portion of the site that has a Multiple Family Residential Comprehensive Plan designation to Commercial Hotel to match the remainder of the property. This parcel has limited and narrow street frontage with significant depth and therefore is not suitable for No Impact residential use. The new designation would be consistent with the COlnmercial Hotel designation for the rest of the site. The Comprehensive Plan policies and programs most applicable to this project include: @ Goal L-]: A well-designed, con1pact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities and open spaces. o Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto's varied residential neighborhoods, while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. c:;J Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall city welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods. @ Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. o Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The proposed designation is consistent with applicable General Plan policies. Zoning The project site is zoned RM-15, Multi-Family residential. This designation is a low-density multi-family residential zoning district intended to create, preserve and enhance areas for a mix of single-family and multiple-family housing, compatible with lower density and residential districts nearby, including single- family residence districts. This district also serves as a transition to moderate density multiple-falnily districts or districts with non-residential uses. Permitted densities in the RM-15 district range from eight to fifteen dwelling units per acre. The remainder of the property where the subject site is located has a zoning designation of CS(H), Service Commercial with a Hotel Combining District. The Service Commercial designation is one intended to create and maintain areas accommodating citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian oriented shopping areas, and which generally require automotive access for customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment, loading or unloading, or parking of commercial service vehicles. The H Hotel Combining District is intended to modify the regulations of . the service commercial and community commercial districts specifically to permit hotels in the service commercial and comn1unity commercial districts. It would enable development of up to a 06. to 1 floor area ratio, with a conditional use permit, and subject to site and design review. The proposed project would rezone the RM-15 portion of the site to CS(L)(D) Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts and allow the development of a pedestrian/bicycle path. The CS Service Commercial would be consistent with the designations of the rest of the larger property. The rezoning of the subject site would allow an increase in the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the entire two parcel The CS zoning district was recently modified to allow hotel uses, similar to the H Combining District. As a result, the H Combining District is no longer necessary. The L Landscape Combining District would provide regulations to ensure the provision of landscaped open space as a physical and visual separation between residential districts to the north and west and more intensive commercial or industrial uses, and in other selected locations where landscaped buffers are desirable. The D Site and Design Review Combining District would provide a review and approval process that would require a development that would be environmental and ecologically sensitive. Developlnent would be sensitive to other uses in the general vicinity and would be required to be compatible with the environmental and ecological objectives and be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Office uses are restricted by PAMC Chapter 18.16.060(b). The CS Service Commercial zone would allow a variety of commercial/retail uses, including hotels, and mixed residential/non-residential uses to be configured either vertically or horizontally on the property, subject to CEQA review and approval of planning and building permits. Office uses are restricted in size per Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAM C) Section ]8.]6.060(a) and (b). The zone change would allow an incremental increase in the allowed floor area ratio of 6% for either commercial or hotel uses', If the rezoning is approved, an application could be submitted requesting an addition of up to approximately 5,280 sq. ft. of commercial non-hotel uses above the currently allowed area of 407,558 sq. ft. Alternatively, if only hotel uses were proposed, approximately 26,400 sq. ft. would be allowed to be added to the currently allowed 81,512 sq. ft.. Any request ,for redevelopment or an addition to the existing development would be subject to CEQA clearance. The maximum allowable residential density within a mixed use project on the site would be 30 dwelling units per acre or 149 units on the entire two parcel Dinah's Hotel/Trader Vic Restaurant site, for a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0: 1. Maximum non- residential floor area ratios for the development may be allowed up 0.4:]. Maximum residential floor area for mixed uses may be allowed up to 0.6: 1, Any mixed use development of more than four residential units would be subject to the City's Site and Design Review process, with a COQ.ncil decision required for approval, whereas projects of four or less units would be reviewed by the Cjty's Architectural Review Board followed by the Planning Director's decision. PAMC chapters] 8.16 and] 8.23 would be applicable to new development, which would be evaluated under context-based design criteria of PAMC 18.] 6 and performance criteria of PAMC ] 8.23, including those for parking and late night uses and activities regulations, This project does not include any specific development proposal. Mitigation Measures: None. J. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Sjgnificant a) b) Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Result in the Joss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ] ,2 x Result in the Joss of availability of a 10caUy- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan ],2 x or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone ] (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto. Mitigation Measures: None. Jl<C NOJl§E Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than i No Impact ! a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) ,......----.. k) 1) Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X levels in excess of standards established in the 1,2,3 local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of ! X excessive ground borne vibrations or ground l,2,3 borne nOIse levels? A substantial pennanent increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 1,2,3 existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in I X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1,2,3 For a project located within an airport land use X plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people i residing or working in the project area to 1,2,3 'excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private x airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to 1,2,3 excessive noise levels? Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to ] ,2,3 X increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1 X an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an ] ,2,3 X existing residential area where the Ldn currentI;: exceeds 60 dB? Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,2,3 X develoEment to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,2,3 X than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,2,3 x daytime background Leg at sensitive receptors I by 10 dBA or more' DISCUSSION: There is no redevelopment proposed with the rezoning and amendment to the land use designation. A pedestrian/bicycle path would not generate significant noise and the noise would be temporary. Any redevelopment project would be evaluated for potential effects on the environment in a separate, site-specific environmental document. Redevelopment on the site would be required to comply with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC. MitigatioJl] Measures: None. L. POPULATION AND JHI01USlNG Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Induce substantial population growth in an X area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for ] ,2 example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing x c) d) e) housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 Displace substantial numbers of people, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 I Create a substantial imbalance between I x employed residents and jobs? CUlliU latively exceed regional or local I population projections? DISCUSSION: The project is a rezoning and re-designation of the 13,200-sq. ft. parcel's land use. No specific development proposals are included. No additional population or housing impacts are anticipated directly from this project or from a non-residential development that may be proposed. Any future development proposal would be subject to environmental review to determine impacts on population and housing, but the population and housing impacts of any mixed use development with seven housing units would be individualJy less than significant. Any cumulative impacts of a mixed use project would be evaluated if such a project were proposed Mitigation Measures: None. M. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 perfonnance I objectives for any of the public services: I Hssues and Supporting ]nformation Resources Sources Potentially Potentially LessTh3n No Impact Significant Significant Sign ifica n t Would the project: Issues UnJess Impact .Mitiga tion i Incor~orated Fire protect jon? 1,2 X X Police protectjon? 1,2 Schools? 1 x Parks? 1 x x I Other pu faciljties? 13 ! DISCUSSION: The proposed project site is located in a fully developed area of the City, where public services are already available. The project is a rezoning and re-designation of the 13,200-sq. ft. parcel's land use and no specific development proposals, other than a pedestrian/bicycle path, are included. Any future developlnent would be subject to environmental and City review to determine potential ilnpacts to public services and whether mitigations are necessary. The city's development impact fees would be imposed upon new development as applicable. Mitigation Measures: None. N. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources I Sources Potentia Uy I Potentially Less Than No Impact a) b) Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Would the project increase the use of X existjng neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1 Does the project include recreational x facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the 1 environment? I DISCUSSION: The project is a rezoning and re-designation of the 13,200-sq. ft. parcel's land use and no specific development proposals are included. Therefore, the redesignation and development of a pedestrianlbicycle path would not have any significant impact on existing parks, nor include or require construction of recreational facilities. Any future development at the project site would be subject to environmental review to determine any recreation impacts and compliance with City standards. MitRgatlioJl] Measllllres: None. o. TRANSPORTATJION AND TRAFFIC and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic x load and capacity of the street system (i.e.} ] ,2 result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at I intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, I a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for ] ,2 designated roads or highways? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns; x including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in su bstantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible ] ,2 uses (e.g.) fann equipment), I e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,2 I I x t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,2,3 1 IX I g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or x programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.) pedestrian, transit & 1,2 bicycle facilities)? h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection x to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by I four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more? j) Cause a local intersection already operating at X LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average ! stopped delay for the critical movements by four ~~~~ rl. or more? j) Cause a 'oj()n~l intersection to deteriorate x from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or more? k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F x or contribute traffic in excess of I % of capacity to a freewa.y It i I alread~ oEerating at LOS F? 1) Cause any change in traffic that wou ld increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? m) Cause queuing impacts based on a x comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing i~pacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. I n) Impede the development or function of x planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? ~mpede the operation of a transit system as a I x result of congestion? . p) Create an operational safety hazard? I x DISCUSSION: The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designation and rezoning of the 13,200-sq. ft.-parcel would not result in a transportation/traffic impact. The path itself would not increase parking demand. However, the addition of a pedestrian/bicycle only path may potentially increase parking demand on neighboring public streets because it provides an additional path to the adjacent SummerHill residential site and Deodar 8t to the west. However, staffbe1ieves that this would a less than substantial impact. The path is intended to provide a secondary hon-vehicular access to the half acre SummerHill homes park for area residents. The path would provide a circuitous route to the 'adJacent housing developments from neighboring public streets. No other development is proposed. Any redevelopment project on the site would be subject to discretionary design review and site specific environmental analysis, including parking and traffic impact analyses. Mitigation: None required. P. . UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than I No Impact Significa n t Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of x the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1,2 b) Require or result in the construction of new x water or wastewater treatment facilities or 1,2 expansion of existing facilities, the ! construction of which could cause significant i environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of I i which could cause significant environmental 1,2 llssues and! Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than I No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Kmpact Mitigation Incorporated effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to x serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded 1,2 entitlements needed? e) Result in a determinatjon by the wastewater x treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projGcted demand in addition to the provider's existing 1,2 commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient x permitted capacHy to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 1,2 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes x and regulations related to solid waste? 1,2 h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration x of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? I DISCUSSION: The proposed site is completely developed in an urban area of the City, where utilities and other services are available. However, there is no specific development proposal associated with this project. Any future development of the site would be subject to both City review and environmental review to ensure that the proposed development would have a less than significant impact on the immediate environment. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources ! Sources Potentially Potentia lJy Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significa n t Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) 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 :x levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or anjmaJ community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major 1,2 periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are lIld I v tdually lImited, but cumulatively 1,2 ISs I and! Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Im.pact Significant Significant Sign ifica n l Would the project: issues Unless lfmpact Mitigation I Incorporated -.-.~ c) considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable» means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in x connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the , effects of probable future projectsl? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or 1,2,4 indirectly? DISCUSSION: The project is a proposed alnendment to the Comprehensive Plan designation and rezoning of the 13,200-sq. ft. parcel and DO specific development proposals are included. Any redevelopment project on the site would be subject to discretionary design review and site specific environmental analysis. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment) substantially reduce the habitat 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 anima1. The proposed project would not eliminate an important example of California History. The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable nor does it have substantial environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. The project is located on an infill site and will not result in considerable effects to the environment, and therefore, would create less than significant impacts on the quality of the environment. When considered with other current projects and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the project is not anticipated to result in cumulatively significant impacts. Global Climate Change Impacts Global climate change is the alteration of the Earth)s weather including its temperature, precipitation, and wind patterns. Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring and anthropogenic generated atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases allow sunlight into the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping into Quter space, which is known as the "greenhouse" effect. The world'E; Jeading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway and is very likely caused by humans. 20 Agencies at the international, national, state, and local levels are considering strategies to control emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. There is no comprehensive strategy that is being implemented on a global scale that addresses climate change; however, in California a multiagency "Climate Action Team", has identified a range of strategies and the Air Resources Board, under Assembly Bill CAB) 32, has been designated to adopt the main plan for reducing California!s GHG emissions by January 1, 2009, and regulations and other initiatives for reducing GHG emissions by January 1, 2011. AB 32 requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equjvalent to 1990 emissions, and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. By 2050, the state plans to reduce elnissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. While the state of California has established prograIns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are no established standards for gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. Neither CEQ A nor the CEQA Guidelines provide any methodology for analysis of greenhouse gases. Given the "global" scope of global -- climate change, the challenge under CEQA is for a Lead Agency to translate the issue down to the level of a CEQA document for a specific project in a way that is Ineaningful to the decision making process. Under CEQA, the essential questions are whether a project creates or contributes to an environmental impact or is subject to impacts from the enviromnent in which it would occur, and what mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce impacts. The project is a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan designation and rezoning of the] 3,200- sq. ft. parcel and no specific development proposals are included. Any redevelopment project on the site would be subject to discretionary design review and site specific environmental analysis. Any future development will be required to comply with the City's Green Building Regulations (PAMC Chapter ] 8.44). Future development can include different components that will offset a project's potentia] minor incremental contribution to global climate change. These include: ® For buildings, require energy-efficient design such as that encapsulated in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEE D) Green Building Ratings. LEED standards are widely recognized benchmarks for the design, construction, and operation of energy efficient commercial and residential buildings (energy efficiency is only part ofLEED; a big part of the rating is also indoor air quality). o Require incorporation of transit into project design through considerations siting, location, and transit linkages. @ Require purchase of energy-efficient appliances and office equipment (Energy Star compliant, etc.). (;) Promote waste reduction measures and recycling (reduces cost to transport and dispose waste and energy associated with product manufacture). til> Incorporate on-site renewable energy production (such as solar installations on building rooftops) and water reuse. e In planning, promote mixed-use, compact, and higher-density development to reduce trip distance, promote alternatives to vehicle travel, and promote efficiency in delivery of services and goods. Future development would be required to conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan and'other policies to reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, and encourage automobile-alternative modes of transportation (e.g., public transit, walking, and bicycling). Although greenhouse gas emissions generated by future development would have the potential to cumulatively contribute to global climate change, to determine whether it would have a significant impact on global climate change is speculative, particularly given the fact that there are no existing numerical thresholds to determine an impact. However, in an effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental ilnpacts and to conform with the CEQA Guidelines [§16064(b)], it is the City's position that, based on the nature and size of this redevelopment project, its location within an established urban area served by existing infrastructure (rather than a greenfield site), and the policies and measures included in the Comprehensive P1an and Palo Alto Municipal Code to reduce vehicle use, the future developlnent would not impede the state's ability to reach the emission reduction limits/standards set forth by the State of California'by Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32. Over the long term, the expectation from regional planning agencies is that intensifying land uses near transit will lead to reduced dependence on the automobile and increased transit ridership. For these reasons, future development would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions. Final measures to reduce energy use and emissions would be reviewed during the design review process. SOURCE REFERENCES -All repOlis used as sources and prepared specifically for the project should be listed by title/date 1. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project 2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 (list specific policy and map references) 3. Palo A Ito Municipal Code, including Title 18 -Zoning Ordinance 4. Required compliance with the Unifonn Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and W indload 5. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10:030, June 2001 DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: li find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the x environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. K find that aHhough the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there win 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 win be prepared. li 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 aU potentialJy significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Project Planne:r TO: FROM: ) ATTACHMENT G PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Elena Lee, Senior Planner DEP ARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: July 8,2009 SUBJECT: 4261 and 4273 El Camino Real: Review and initiation of requests for: (1) an Amendment to the Zoning Map to Change the Zone Designation of an approximately 13,200 square foot portion of Dinah's Hotel property from the RM-15 (Residential Multi-Family) Zone to the CS(L) (Service Commercial with Landscape Combining District) and (2) a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of the same property from Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel at 4261 El Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: A draft Initial Study will be prepared and will be circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) direct the Director of Planning and Community Environment to initiate a zone change fronl RM-15 Multi- Family to CS(L) for an approximately 13,200-sq. ft. portion of a property located at 4261 and 4273 El Camino Real, as defined in the attached parcel map (Attachment A). Additionally, staff recommends that the Commission direct the Director of Planning and Community Environment to initiate a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation change of the same property from Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel. BACKGROUND: The project site owned by Dinah's Court Hotel, is a vacant, 39.9 foot wide by 329.8 foot deep parcel with frontage on Wilkie Way. The subject site is approximately 13,200 sq. ft. in size, not 16,200 sq. ft. as previously indicated. The current RM-15 Multi-Family Residential Zone generally allows single-family and multiple-family housing that is compatible with lower density and residential districts nearby, with a density range of between eight and fifteen dwelling units per acre. The Multiple Family Residential land use designation on the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehensive Plan land use map, would generally allow a residential project having a density Page 10f5 ranging from eight to 40 units and eight to 90 persons per acre. However, due to the parcel's limited street frontage, narrow width and significant depth, the parcel was not and realistically could not be developed for residential use. In 2003, a proposal was submitted to change the zoning designation of the subject parcel to CS(H) Service Commercial with a Hotel Combining District and CS(H)(L) Service Commercial with Hotel and Landscape Combining Districts. However, the applicant's objective was to obtain both vehicular and pedestrian access to the hotel. This proposal was not approved and the property retained its current RM .;.15 zoning. Subsequent to this previous application, the Zoning Ordinance was the subj ect of a comprehensive update in 2005. The CS Service Commercial Zoning District was modified to allow hotel uses. The H Combining District would no longer be necessary for properties with the CS designation to allow hotel uses. The remainder of Dinah's property is zoned CS(H), Service Commercial with a Hotel Combining District and designated as Commercial Hotel on the Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan land use map. The Commercial Hotel land use designation allows facilities, such as hotels and motels, along with associated conference centers and other similar uses. Other uses typically associated with hotels are also allowed, such as restaurants and supporting services. The CS Service Commercial designation is one intended to create and maintain areas for citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian oriented shopping areas, and which are more automobile oriented. As discussed above, the H Combining District no longer haS to be specifically included in the rezoning of the site to allow hotel uses. Pedestrian Access A significant issue of concern during the approval process for the SummerHill Homes Tentative Map at the Elk's site (4249 EI Camino Real) was the lack of pedestrian and bicycle access through the site; particularly, access from Wilkie Way to the public park located at the rear of the site. Both the Commission and ARB had also expressed a concern over the lack of such connectivity between Wilkie Way and EI Camino Real. In response, the applicant had dedicated a public access easement across Street A, a private street located at the southern area of the site nearest EI Camino Real, to facilitate connectivity through the project from Deodar Street to the adjacent Dinah's Garden Court Hotel property (Attachment I). The path would be available to connect to should the hotel property be redeveloped. To address concerns, Summerhill agreed to dedicate a second four-foot wide public path on the northern end of the site to provide a more direct access to the public park from the Dinah's property, closer to Wilkie Way, provided that the City obtain access rights on the adjacent hotel property by March 24, 2009. The applicant subsequently agreed to extend the deadline by which the City would have to obtain access to September 24, 2009. Staff determined that the most efficient and feasible option, given the time constraint, was to obtain an easement for pedestrian and bicycle only access from Wilkie Way to the second easement point. Staff identified the approximately 13,200 sq. ft. vacant parcel that is part of the adjacent hotel site that could connect Wilkie Way to the SummerHill easement and the public park. The owner of the hotel property has indicated that they may be willing to dedicate that easement to the City. In order to facilitate the development of the easement, it was determined City Page 2 of5 that it would be necessary to amend the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations to allow the highest and best use of the vacant parcel. The redesignation would allow a path to be constructed and the parcel to be redeveloped. DISCUSSION Proj ect Description The proposed project is a City-initiated rezoning from the RM-15 Multi-Family zoning district to the CS(L) Service Commercial with Landscape Combining District, and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map to change the land use designation from Multi-Family to Commercial Hotel, consistent with the zone change. It would enable the redevelopment of the vacant parcel to a use more suitable for the commercial use that already occupies the majority of the site, or use of the land area under commercial floor area standards to contribute to floor area to any redevelopment of the Dinah's hotel site. The primary change that would occur because of the rezoning would be that the allowable commercial floor area would increase for the overall site if it is redeveloped. The new designation would allow a hotel floor area ratio of2:1.0 or an addition of 26,400 sq. ft. Alternatively, the new designation would allow a non-hotel commercial floor area ratio of 0.4:1 or an addition of 5,280 sq. ft. The proposed land use designation is an amendment from the current Multiple Family Residential designation to Commercial Hotel to match the remainder of the Dinah's hotel property. The following Table 1 is an analysis of the maximum floor area changes that would happen if the parcel is rezoned to the CS designation. Table 1-Floor Area Maximums Currently allowed: Commercial (Non-Hotel) Hotel Only 0.4:1 2:1 Parcell 32,409 sq. ft. 162,044 sq. ft. 81,022 sq.ft. Parcel 2 (CS portion) 49,103 sq. ft. 245,514 sq. ft. 122,757 sq. ft. Parcel 2 (RM-15 N/A N/A I portion) 13,200 (Subject Parcel) Total 81,512 sq. ft. 407,558 Proposed: Parcell 32,409 sq. ft. 162,044 sq. ft. 81,022 sq.ft. Parcel 2 (CS portion) 49,103 sq. ft. 245,514 sq. ft. 122,757 sq. ft. Parcel 2 (Rezoned 5,280 sq. ft. 26,400 sq. ft. portion/Subject Parcel) 13,200 (New) Total 86,792 sq. ft. 433,958 sq. ft. City Page 3 The proposed rezoning is from the RM-15 Multi-family zone district to the CS(L) Service Commercial zone with Landscape combining district. The CS Service Commercial zoning would be consistent with the zoning of the rest of Dinah's hotel property. The L Landscape Combining District would provide regulations to ensure the provision of landscaped open space to provide a physical and visual separation between residential districts to the north, east and west and more intensive commercial uses along EI Camino Real. While the RM -15 zone can and has been used to serve as a transition district between the R -1 district and hotel site, the proposed zoning will continue to provide a transitional buffer since the development area of the 13,200 s.f. parcel would be limited to a pathway and landscaping in the easement area (6,000 s.f.) and development of the renlaining 13,200 square feet of the parcel would be highly problematic. The City nlay not condition the rezoning on the easement dedication. As previously stated, staff will have a signed easement in advance of any zoning action. Zone Change Process The process for a City-initiated zone change is outlined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code under Chapter 18.98. The steps are summarized as below: • The City Councilor Planning and Transportation Commission can direct the Planning Director to initiate a zoning amendment. • The Commission sets a date for a regular or special meeting of the PTC, including a public hearing and notice to the subject 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 finding and determinations for the requested zone change. Upon notice and a public hearing, the City Council takes final action regarding the zoning. • The Comprehensive Plan designation follows the same review process as the rezoning and will be done concurrently with the rezoning. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The changes are proposed in response to Council direction and to bring consistency to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations for one property. Staff believes that bringing consistency to the various designations would facilitate the highest and best use of an unusual property while enhancing pedestrian and bicycle access and precluding vehicular access to and from Wilkie Way. A more detailed analysis will be provided should the Commission initiate the subj ect designation changes. ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW: Although this action by the Comnlission giving direction to initiate a zone change process is not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, an Environmental Impact Assessment, including an Initial Study Checklist, has been prepared and a Negative Declaration is anticipated if staff is directed to move forward with the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation change. City of Palo Alto Page 4 of5 PUBLIC OUTREACH: In the interest of providing public outreach, staff met twice with representatives of the Charleston Meadows Association and other interested residents. The first meeting was held on May 26,2009 with a representative of the Charleston Meadows Association and an interested area resident to obtain feedback on the City's proposal. Following the meeting, those representatives were also informed of the scheduling of this request for initiation of the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment prior to the publication and distribution of the hearing notice. Staff also attended a Charleston Meadows Association meeting on June 30, 2009, to discuss the proposal and to answer questions. Some residents have expressed support for the new connection. However, there are Charleston Meadows residents that are very concerned that providing access will cause more drivers to park on Wilkie Way. As a potential solution to prevent overflow parking, a request was made that the City should implement a parking permit program prior to making the SummerHill easement open to the pUblic. Public Hearing notices have been mailed out to the subject property owner and owners/occupants of properties located within 600 feet of the site. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Parcel Map Zoning Map Comprehensive Plan Map Easement Map PAMC Chapter 18.16 (CS Service Commercial) PAMC Chapter 18.30(D) Hotel (H) Combining District PAMC Chapter 18.30(E) Landscape (L) Combining District Attachment H: Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Commercial Hotel Land Use Designation Definition COlTRTESY COPIES: Martha Miller, Administrative Service Department, Real Estate David Conklin, Owner Representative Sara Armstrong, President, Charleston Meadows Association Prepared by: Elena Lee, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Current Planning Manager DepartmentiDivision Head Approval: -_C~~~~I-\~~f-1'oI)I-~""'~.J>I.I\-¥~""""" :....::.--=--_____ _ Curtis Williams, Interim Director Page 5 of5 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes July 8, 2009 EXCERPT 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real*: Review and initiation of requests for: (1) an Amendment to the Zoning Map to Change the Zone Designation of a 16,200 square foot portion of Dinah's Hotel property from the RM-15 (Residential Multi-Family) Zone to the CS(L) (Service Conunercial with Landscape Combining District, and (2) a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of the same property from Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel at 4261 EI Camino ReaL Environmental Assessment: A draft Initial Study will be prepared and will be circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. 1 Ms. Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair and Commissioners. Staff requests the 2 Commission initiate two changes a zone change from RM-15 Multifamily zone to the CS, 3 Service Commercial with a Landscape Combining District, and a Comprehensive Plan Land Use 4 designation change from Multifamily residential to Commercial HoteL Just a point of 5 clarification, the total square footage of the property is 13,200, which is smaller than the number 6 identified in the hearing notice language. 7 8 These requests were driven by direction from City Council to implement a pedestrian-bicycle 9 connection upon the approval of a Tentative Map for the adjacent SummerHill project. Provided 10 at places is a map showing the parcel's relationship to the new pedestrian-bicycle path for the 11 adjacent SummerHill property and park. That is also shown on the overhead and copies have 12 been made at the back as well. 13 14 Also at places is Staff response to enlail questions from Commissioner Keller. Staffhas also 15 received an email inquiry from Commissioner Holman regarding the Hyatt Rickey's project and 16 whether it is required that access to Wilkie Way be limited to emergency vehicle based on 17 impacts identified from overflow parking and cut-through traffic on Wilkie Way. These issues 18 will be further studied if this proj ect is initiated. Staff did take a look at that issue and the two 19 issues were resolved because first of all the overflow parking issue was identified because of 20 lack of parking or less than required parking proposed for the hotel site, but since the hotel 21 project was removed from the project there were no parking impacts and it was less than 22 significant. The other item was the character of Wilkie Way and impacts on it. The applicant 23 has changed the project so there was no vehicular access on Wilkie Way. So that was no longer 24 an issue either. Again, Staffwill follow up on this. Again, because the project was fully parked 25 under the housing only option it was not considered an impact. 26 27 At places also are several enlail correspondences received from the Charleston Meadows 28 residents received subsequent to the distribution of the Staff Report. Staffhas received support 29 for the changes and the path, however some residents including the Charleston Meadows 30 Association are supportive of the zone change and the Comprehensive Plan change but only with Page 1 1 additional provisions making the site permanently off limits to vehicles and implementing a 2 permit parking program on surrounding residential streets. 3 4 If the Commission chooses to initiate the rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment a 5 detailed analysis of the changes will be provided to the Commission at the formal hearing 6 tentatively scheduled for August 12. That concludes Staffs report. 7 8 Chair Garber: Thank you. Planning Director. 9 10 Mr. Williams: Yes, first of all I want to reiterate that the action is to initiate the Amendment 11 tonight. We will be back with more information and full public hearing and notice again with 12 the ordinance before we would go onto Council. Secondly, as Elena mentioned, the outgrowth 13 generally of our attempts as directed by the Council to try to obtain pedestrian access to the 14 adj acent parcel, however that cannot be, and our attorney can certainly chime in if she would 15 like, but that may not be a condition of approval of this proj ect. There is not a nexus for that and 16 it is not -it constitutes a contract between the City and the applicant on the zoning and that is not 17 allowed. So it can't be a condition. We expect when we come back to you with the rezoning 18 however to also have at that time a signed copy of the easement that would be dedicated by the 19 Dinah's property owner to the City so that you can see what that looks like. We can visit that at 20 that time. 21 22 I would let the neighbors speak to their issues and concerns and I think then I may have some 23 additional ideas as far as some of the conditions the Charleston Meadows neighborhood would 24 like to see inlposed. Thank you. 25 26 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, let's start with a question period and then we will go 27 to public comment. As a just brief announcement I would like to thank the remaining members 28 of the public who have managed to stay here so long for their patience and we will get to you as 29 quickly as we can. Commissioner Tuma and then Fineberg. 30 31 Vice-Chair Tuma: A question for Staff. Do we have a defined process or criteria by which we 32 evaluate requests for permit parking within a neighborhood? I know this just happened Monday 33 night for College Terrace and that was a long time in coming. Do we have criteria that triggers 34 the City'S willingness to do an analysis or how does that process work? 35 36 Mr. Williams: There isn't really a defined process for this kind of request. The College Terrace 37 request came specifically out of the Stanford General Use Permit and initiated that. We have had 38 requests from neighborhoods besides this one from Charleston Meadows to look at permit 39 parking. We want to begin having some dialogue with those neighborhoods about doing that but 40 there isn't a formalized process largely because there isn't dedicated funding at this point for the 41 kind of initial startup costs to analyze that kind of program. 42 43 What we did with the College Terrace group using the funding that was provided by Stanford 44 was to work with a consultant and to work with the neighborhood and the Police Department and 45 our Administrative Services Department to sort of define what the costs would be, who was 46 interested in participating, what hours, and all the details of it, and then have some voting among Page 2 1 the neighborhood to see who was interested, and come forward with that. So it is not well- 2 defined process at this point. We certainly are interested in having that dialogue with neighbors. 3 That was going to be one of my responses as far as their concerns. 4 5 I know we can't commit to having permit parking in there. I think their suggestion is to tie that 6 somehow to, I would hope, opening the pathway as opposed to getting an easement. So there are 7 two separate processes here. One is just to get an easement in which case there is just an 8 easement but it is not open to the public until we create a pathway that makes that connection. 9 So in concept that is I think a fine idea. I am a little concerned that what if we go out to the 10 neighborhood and then the neighborhood decides as a neighborhood they don't want permit 11 parking. So I wouldn't want to -again we can't really condition this on that anyway but I think 12 we can go on the record saying that we are willing to work with the neighborhood to try to 13 develop that, that we won't come forward with a specific proposal for the pathway to actually 14 COlmect until we have either gotten that done, or determined for some reason that it isn't feasible 15 to do it, or there isn't enough support in the neighborhood to do it. 16 17 To get back to your original question there isn't a formalized process at this point. 18 19 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, so your response triggered another question. Let me just clarify part of 20 what I believe you said. By initiating a zone change and change to the Comprehensive Plan 21 designation does not then entitle this property to put in a pathway. Is that correct? They still 22 have to go through an entitlement process or how does that work? 23 24 Mr. Williams: Let nle suggest, and I thought of something today I have not even gotten to talk to 25 Elena and Amy about yet. First of all it would not be the owner. I should clarify I can't call 26 Dinah's the owner the City is initiating this rezoning not Dinah's. Dinah's either at that point or 27 upon redevelopment is not obligated in any way to put a pathway in. That is the City's 28 easement. The City would be the one that would construct the pathway. 29 30 Now one of the other concerns that the neighbors have is that that pathway be designed and 31 landscaped in a way that doesn't allow vehicular access. We will have a restriction in the 32 easement that doesn't allow vehicular access anyway but I think we can also incorporate that into 33 the design; Typically just having the easement with what we have suggested having a Landscape 34 Combining District overlay on there, which generally limits it to landscaping and this pathway. 35 One other option that you could direct us to do is to include a Site and Design overlay over this 36 part of aD overlay, which would then require that when that pathway is designed to come 37 forward that the Commission and the City Council will review that. All the neighbors are then 38 notified and there is a process so it is not something that can be done and just installed. We have 39 a formalized process that you can see, the community can see to make sure that that's designed 40 in a way that discourages and prohibits access and is still attractive from a landscape and 41 pedestrian pathway. I should point out that the easement is proposed to be 40 feet wide the 42 whole width of this flagpole and the reason we did that was we didn't want to do just enough for 43 the pathway and then there would still be enough for a car to come through. So the Dinah's 44 ownership was agreeable to that. But we don't expect the pathway to be more than probably ten 45 feet wide out of that. So there should be plenty of room in there to do landscaping and other Page 3 1 features to make an attractive connection between Wilkie Way and the SummerHill 2 development. 3 4 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. One other really quick question. On page 2 of the Staff Report it 5 indicates that a proposal was made back in 2003, change the zoning, and it says this proposal 6 was not approved. What were the reasons for it not being approved? Do you recall? 7 8 Ms. Lee: It wasn't that the project wasn't approved the applicant actually withdrew the 9 application. 10 ' 11 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. 12 13 Mr. Williams: The neighbors could probably speak to this better than we. There was a hearing 14 at the Commission is my understanding and that there was opposition in the neighborhood that 15 might have been some concern about vehicular access, some concern about what would go on on 16 that parcel because it wasn't proposed for just a pathway or for landscaping. Also I think some 17 drainage concerns came up along Wilkie Way as well. 18 19 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. 20 21 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Keller. 22 23 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to confirm my understanding that on this diagram that we 24 have that was at places and is on the screen that the easement would only be the purple' area. The 25 green area that is contiguous to Dinah's would not be an easement, would not be a path, the City 26 would not landscape and would not build a sidewalk on it. So what we are really talking about is 27 only the portion from Wilkie to what is labeled as proposed path in the area between the five 28 houses and the bigger project lower on the page. Is that correct? 29 30 Ms. Lee: Well yes, the only portion that is part of the discussion is just that purple area. 31 32 Mr. Williams: That is where the easement is. The whole area there would be rezoned including 33 the L Landscape Combining District would be overlain on there. 34 35 Commissioner Fineberg: So the whole red area would be rezoned but only purple would be City 36 easement with sidewalk. Okay. The reason I am asking that is I am trying to figure out who is 37 going to use the pathway. So do we know what is going to happen in the other part the lower 38 green part within the red dots? Is Dinah going to put some kind of a pathway fronl their property 39 that would then link their property to Wilkie for pedestrians or bicyclists? 40 41 Mr. Williams: We don't know at this point but that is not prohibited. As long as it is consistent 42 with the landscape, the L overlay, and I believe that would be then there could be that kind of 43 connection. 44 45 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, because that could potentially inlpact the amount of pedestrian 46 or bicycle traffic through there because it would give access to folks at the Elk's Club going Page 4 1 around the front of Dinah's, granted it might be a trespass, but it would be a fairly easy and 2 porous border. Then they could go out the back towards Wilkie Way. 3 4 The second question I have is what is the life of the easement? What happens after the 5 easement's life ends? 6 7 Mr. Williams: It is a perpetual easement. 8 9 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So then is there any possibility down the road through other 10 than rezoning that the panhandle could either be built on or be paved for vehicle access to be 11 allowed? 12 13 Mr. Williams: It would take action of the Council to, I assume, rescind the easement or rescind 14 or amend the easement in some way to allow that as well as to change the zoning. 15 16 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. The Landscape Combining District on top ofCS is that 17 something that allows any type of structure development or is it only landscape and sidewalks? 18 What is allowed use in the L Combining District? 19 20 Mr. Williams: It basically allows landscaping, screen planting, fences or walls, and pedestrian, 21 bicycle, equestrian pathways, and then a CUP for noncommercial recreational activities and 22 facilities so that would be City. 23 24 Commissioner Fineberg: So the City could build other recreational structures on that easement 25 with a CUP then? 26 27 Mr. Williams: It says when conducted with a CUP when conducted accessory to or in 28 association with uses listed as permitted uses. So again if there were something constructed in 29 conjunction with the pathway basically or landscaping. 30 31 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, or a long skinny building potentially with a CUP. 32 33 Mr. Williams: Well, I don't think that would be, it says only when it is accessory to these other 34 uses. I don't think an active facility say lawn bowling or something would be accessory to a 35 pathway or the landscaping. That would be the dominant use of the land rather than be accessory 36 to it. 37 38 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. My last question is I understand the goal of providing the 39 walkable neighborhoods and the history and the failures of previous Councils and whatever else 40 led us to where we are now. Given where we are now I anl questioning, and I don't know yet 41 where this is going to lead me or other Commission members, to whether there is a need for this 42 path and the associated expenses to the City for the rezoning, for the granting of greater and 43 higher use of the land, if I am correct Deodar goes all the way to Wilkie Way and the back of it. 44 Where is the emergency road that connects? It is truncated on this map and I tried to see it in our 45 Staff Report and it was in teeny, teeny little black, but where is the emergency exit off the back 46 of what had been the Hyatt Rickey's property? Page 5 1 2 Mr. Williams: It is between some of the lots. It doesn't look like a road per se. 3 4 Commissioner Fineberg: It has a gate but there is a road that leads to it and people can walk on 5 it and bicycles can get around the gate. 6 7 Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: I think Attachment C, Juniper Way shows it. I 8 believe it is somewhere around there where it could be an EVA but it doesn't serve as a 9 pedestrian pathway. 10 11 Mr. Williams: It is not a legal pedestrian or bicycle pathway. 12 13 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So it looks like it is at the back end of Deodar or is it Juniper 14 and then it is further over not between the two properties? 15 16 Ms. French: I believe it is Juniper Way between Wilkie and Juniper Way. The neighbors 17 probably know more because you could probably see it. The houses are kind of split apart there 18 and there are two garages near each other if you can see in that orange area. So again it is only 19 EVA. 20 21 Commissioner Fineberg: I have seen it on Wilkie as I drove by and walked. But I am just 22 struggling to figure it out from a pretty low quality, black and white, small map. How many 23 houses from the comer of Wilkie is it? 24 25 Ms. French: If you are looking at the colored map I believe it is between the second and third 26 house in from the Juniper homes, which are the yellow single-family homes along Wilkie there. 27 28 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So it is basically seven single-family homes from where the 29 proposed easement is located. So my question, I understand that that gate is not legal and are 30 members of the public who pass through it trespassing or is the public right-of-way extending to 31 pedestrians? 32 33 Mr. Williams: They are trespassing if they are using it as pedestrians or for anything other than 34 the equestrian emergency vehicles, other than the owners. 35 36 Commissioner Fineberg: So at the Hyatt Rickey's property where there are private streets was 37 public easement access granted on those streets that members of the public could walk in offEl 38 Camino and walk on their streets? 39 40 Mr. Williams: Deodar is a public street. I don't think the other streets there are the SummerHill, 41 we did do that with the public access, but I don't believe that was done other than for Deodar, 42 which is public in the DR Horton Arbor Real. 43 44 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so members of the public could come in go down Deodar, get to 45 the park, but if they left the park towards Juniper they would be trespassing? 46 Page 6 1 Mr. Williams: Yes. 2 3 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so that explains the need for the rear access to Wilkie in a sense 4 to get people out of the position of being trespassers. Thank you. 5 6 Vice-Chair Tuma: I will just note on the record that I drove by there this morning. I was 7 explaining to Conlffiissioner Fineberg that there is a gate there that goes building to building, and 8 basically you would have to climb the gate or find some other way to get in there. 9 10 Chair Garber: . Commissioner Keller, Holman, and then Lippert. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So my first question has to do with the issue of pennit 13 parking. My understanding is that College Terrace is the first residential portion of Palo Alto to 14 get permit parking. At least it has been approved now by the City Council two nights ago, but 15 that Downtown North and SOFA previously had discussions about permit parking. Could you 16 tell me how it was decided that Downtown North and SOFA should or should not get permit 17 parking? 18 19 Mr. Williams: I don't know the details of both of those. I know for the Downtown North project 20 or analysis that the cost of doing that was prohibitive. It is a lot of homes and it ended up being 21 hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire new police staff, put in all the signs, etc., etc., and it was 22 determined it didn't get too far because of that cost issue. That may have happened with SOFA 23 too. I don't know. I have not heard discussions of SOFA. There was a question on the College 24 Terrace thing about Downtown North and why it cost so much at that point. I think we have an 25 advantage now that we have done College Terrace that some of those startup costs at least 26 probably would be less for subsequent neighborhoods because we have done a lot of the 27 homework on that project. The ongoing costs would be have to be assessed in terms of the 28 incremental police coverage versus the income that might be expected from revenue from 29 parking tickets. We would have to assess that and then come up with a price point as far as what 30 parking permits would cost and talk to the neighborhood about whether they were willing to do 31 that. 32 33 One of the things the Council has made very clear in all of the discussions of permit parking in 34 previous programs is that it needs to be revenue neutral and it is not going to be subsidized by 35 the City. 36 37 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. With respect to Downtown North, SOFA, or College Terrace 38 all of those if I believe would be essentially permit parking during the day. So they would allow 39 any parking at night. They would just have limitations during the day. Is it envisioned that any 40 permit parking for the adjacent neighborhood, the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, would be 41 permit parking during the day, pemlit parking at night, do you have any thoughts of what it 42 would be and how it would be enforced? 43 44 Mr. Williams: Well, that is the discussion we had with College Terrace too about what the hours 45 were and whether to do it at night, and all that. The neighborhood came down in that instance in 46 favor of the eight to five. Doing it later might have additional costs and might have driven the Page 7 1 pennit cost up for the residents. I am not sure. That is a discussion we would have with any 2 neighborhood that we were talking with. I know in this instance, Charleston Meadows, 3 nighttime would be a very important thing to address because you are really looking at possible 4 residential parking impacts, which tend to be most acute at nighttime. Whereas in College 5 Terrace the parking impacts are primarily from either workers or students at Stanford or the 6 Research Park so that the daytime was the most intense concern, although there are issues at 7 night as well. Really that was where the most intense concern was and that is why they I think 8 indicated going in that direction. 9 10 We also indicated to the Council the other night that after a year or so of seeing how it goes we 11 will revisit that. If the residents feel like there is a nighttime issue and we need to go back and 12 reassess what it would cost to go to a nighttime system as well we will look at that. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: So essentially this would be as envisioned, the first parking enforcement 15 that occurs at night other than pennanent red zones and things like that. 16 17 Mr. Williams: Yes. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: Is there any potential that rather than having the enforcement of parking 20 be done by City personnel that certain residents in the neighborhood might be appropriately 21 trained in the laws of the State of California and deputized appropriately to give out parking 22 tickets so that the City did not have to pay for some person coming at night? 23 24 Mr. Williams: I believe that issue has been broached with the Police Department and they have 25 not agreed to that to date. So I don't know if there is room to discuss that or not. I would prefer 26 not to get into a detailed parking pennit parking discussion. I know it is an interesting subject 27 and we could talk about it for awhile. Other than to say that we are certainly interested and 28 willing to engage in that conversation with the community in this neighborhood to see what 29 could be done in that regard. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate your forbearance in letting me ask those questions. That is 32 my last question about parking. I will point out that I dare say that if residents of the 33 neighborhood were allowed to be deputized to issue parking tickets, a) they would occur a lot 34 nlore frequently than City enforcement could possibly allow; and b) it would also increase the 35 revenues to the City there too. That might even be able to pay for additional police officers that 36 might be to the benefit of the Police Department. 37 38 In tenns of Deodar Street it looks to me from the map that is nicely on the screen that if this 39 easement is put into place with the walkway, etc. that one could go from Wilkie Way down the 40 purple easement, across the thin green line over to the park, and then make their way to Deodar 41 Street, and from there go to the Arbor Real, or the Elk's or anywhere. I am wondering what is 42 wrong with my analysis there. 43 44 Mr. Williams: Nothing. It is circuitous but yes you could make that connection. 45 Page 8 1 Commissioner Keller: So if the Elk's club were to have a large gathering of Elk's, and there was 2 overflow parking people might use that circuitous route to park on Wilkie Way for an Elk's 3 gathering. Is that reasonable to say? 4 5 Ms. Lee: Just to clarify the ARB approval for the Elk's project does incorporate an overflow- 6 parking program where they actually have valet service to stack cars on there. So there were 7 specific provisions within their permit to prevent overflow parking in the surrounding 8 neighborhoods. 9 10 Commissioner Keller: Well, I appreciate that although I have to tell you that I myself when 11 given opportunity to park with valet parking versus park somewhere, I know some people would 12 avoid that. 13 14 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, Commissioner Fineberg had a follow up to that. 15 16 Commissioner Fineberg: The valet service, does it require that the stacking be within their 17 basement? In San Francisco or in other cities the valets then just go out and park on the street 18 and run it back and forth. Was there any mention of the valets not parking on Wilkie? 19 20 Ms. Lee: The parking management plan was specifically to park it onsite, on their new parking 21 lot. 22 23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Would there be access through the Dinah's property to 26 Wilkie Way? Could they basically build a pedestrian or whatever through there? 27 28 Mr. Williams: They could. It is just a matter of taking their parking lot area and making a 29 connection there. I have no idea whether they would want to do that. It is not an attractive area 30 right now and it would invite people to come the other way, which would be coming onto their 31 private property, which they may not, I would think they probably would not want to have 32 happen at this point in time. Now with redevelopment in the future who knows what the desire 33 may be. But legally could they? Yes. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: Okay. I think I heard you Acting Director Williams mention something 36 about a Site and Design overlay. Could you talk a little bit about what a Site and Design would 37 do and what the implications of how that would give us more control? 38 39 Mr. Williams: Yes. A Site and Design overlay we have that on some portions of the Research 40 Park. We have it for mixed use projects that involve more than four residential units. We have it 41 on the East Bayshore area, a lot of the area out there requires Site and Design, almost all of it 42 does. So the Site and Design process if you have that D overlay means that you have to come 43 through ARB, Commission, and Council. In fact that is what brought the Palo Alto Bowl project 44 before the Commission was the Site and Design. That wasn't an overlay that was a provision in 45 the code that basically says if you have more than four residential units as part of mixed use that Page 9 1 it has to come through the Site and Design process, but it is the sanle thing with the overlay on 2 there. 3 4 I also wanted to add that I noted when the question was asked about the L landscape provision 5 that the pathway is going to have to have a Conditional Use Permit to have it approved as well. 6 So if and when the pathway were actually to be constructed then there would also be a 7 Conditional Use Permit process, which would require notice to the neighbors and wouldn't 8 automatically require a hearing but if they were concerned about it or obj ected to it that would 9 trigger coming to the Planning Commission for a hearing. So both of those methods would 10 involve more public review of that potential pathway. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: So hypothetically under the current zoning if the Dinah's property wished 13 to could they actually build a driveway from the back of 4261 all the way to Wilkie Way and 14 have people driving in both directions? 15 16 Mr. Williams: I don't know. I suspect we would find some reason that couldn't happen but I 17 don't know right off what it is. Now, what they could do is they could certainly right now put a 18 pathway from Wilkie Way to EI Camino on their property if they wanted to. 19 20 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. One last question. This essentially increases the 21 potential build out of Dinah's property. I believe one of the loose ends that happened from 22 before is in the CS zone there is the issue that when you have a 2.0 FAR it is for a hotel use. I 23 am wondering with respect to the 25 percent condos, which we allowed how that factors in, and 24 is there some cleanup that needs to happen there. 25 26 Mr. Williams: I think what you are referring to is whether that needs to be basically within the 27 hotel or if the housing can be detached from the hotel. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: That is correct. 30 31 Mr. Williams: My reading is that it is within the hotel. It is not detached from the hotel and the 32 language is pretty specific about it being part of the hotel. So that is the way we would look at 33 that. Now I don't know that there isn't a way to be more explicit with it, maybe we could, but it 34 didn't seem ambiguous to me when I looked at that.' 35 36 Commissioner Keller: Okay, so the clear thing is that in some sense if you were vertical mixed 37 use then that would essentially be within the hotel building and it could be part of the 2.0 FAR, 38 but from horizontal mixed use that would be essentially as if the parcel were divided into two 39 parts. 40 41 Mr. Williams: Right. It would be a mixed use project with more than four residential units 42 requiring Site and Design Review and the FAR would be calculated separately for the residential 43 component. It wouldn't be part of the 2.0 for the hotel. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: I am taking from your answer that you think that the way the code is 46 written is pretty clear about how that is done. Page 10 1 2 Mr. Williams: Yes I do. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: Thank: you. 5 6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then Lippert. 7 8 Commissioner Holman: The public is being very, very patient with us I think:. I want to backup 9 a little bit. A couple of things. One is should this get initiated tonight I would want to have 10 more information about the EIR because while there wasn't any hotel that was built there has 11 been a lot of conversation about whether the resultant development is fully parked or not. So I 12 think: it would be appropriate to see what the ratios were and how much guest parking there was 13 and such because it is another private street development. So I think it would be appropriate for 14 us to see that when it comes back if we initiate tonight. 15 16 Curtis you mentioned that the path can't be a condition of approval for an initiation. 17 18 Mr. Williams: For the rezoning. 19 20 Commissioner Holman: For the initiation of the rezoning. 21 22 Mr. Williams: No. The zoning cannot -there is no nexus to make it a condition of approval of 23 the zoning. What we will do is we will make the dedication or the acceptance of easement 24 conditional upon the zoning. We will have the easement in our hands signed by the property 25 owner and so it will be at our discretion to record it subject to our having actually rezoned it at 26 that point in time. So it is kind of flipped the other way. 27 28 Commissioner Holman: There is kind of a chicken and egg aspect to this. Just to be clear, the 29 whole area that is indicated with the red dashed line is what is being asked to be rezoned to CS, 30 but the easement would only be across the purple or violet portion of it. 31 32 Mr. Williams: That is correct. 33 34 Commissioner Holman: Okay. So this is where it gets to be a little chicken and egg for me. 35 36 Mr. Williams: The landscape overlay is on the rest of it too. 37 38 Commissioner Holman: Yes. So the rezoning is a discretionary action, okay? So part of me 39 wonders what is being proposed at the Dinah's site, which I don't know, and why we would do 40 the rezoning now. I know the answer but there is also like I said the chicken/egg. Why we 41 would do the rezoning now as opposed to wait and do that as a part of or in conjunction with a 42 proposal so we have more discretion. You will clarify I am sure. Why we wouldn't have more 43 discretion if we did this later when a proposal comes along such that we could have more 44 discretion and perhaps provide more public benefit as a result of our discretion for the rezoning. 45 I understand we are getting the rights to an easement on some land that we don't own. At the 46 same time we are also providing allowance for 26,400 square feet more of development, which is Page 11 I significant. It is quite significant. The other aspect of that is we already have because of the 2 unusual configuration of this parcel because of the two panhandles if you will. We have a 3 situation where when you calculate the land are and the FAR we have a situation where this 4 property, the Dinah's and the Trader Vic's, is potentially going to be over-developed in its 5 impact because of it is not just a regular rectangular let's say parcel. So we already have one 6 parlhandle being applied to that parcel and then if we have another panhandle applied to that 7 parcel with the development potential from both of those panhandles -is this making sense? So 8 this other development can very well be disproportionate to the size of the functional parcel. 9 10 So my question goes to the amount of discretion that we have if we don't initiate now but initiate 11 later, and what we might do to have some better controls over what happens on the larger portion 12 of the parcel. 13 14 Mr. Williams: Yes I understand that well and I think that is generally well stated. There would 15 be more discretion if you waited and you could see the whole picture. Frankly, we have no 16 chance of getting this connection to the adjacent property if we wait until then. We have no idea 17 when and if Dinah's is going to redevelop. We have a window that closes on September 24 of 18 this year to make a connection to the easement to SummerHill or that easement in SummerHill 19 goes away. 20 21 I would add that in addition to getting potential access to the adjacent property we also are 22 getting locked in prohibition on vehicular access to that site, and essentially about a 300-foot 23 buffer of landscape area basically between Wilkie Way and future development. So while that is 24 a narrow area that has very little potential for development anyway there could be some proposal 25 to run some parking back there or do something if we don't somehow restrict that. Now you 26 would be able to look at that when it came in and try to address that at a future point but we think 27 this is a reasonable tradeoff. 28 29 It is an area that is clearly a commercial site and yes it would allow some more development, 30 which amounts to five percent or less increase on the site, but it would do that. You would have 31 more discretion later on. Our only other option here in terms of trying to meet this deadline is to 32 purchase the property and we have looked at that and there is no way that that is going to happen 33 given the appraisal that we have seen and the lack of funds that the City has. So it is up to you. 34 35 I would really, really stress that we would like you to initiate this. If you are uncomfortable with 36 where this is going ultimately and feel you would need to recommend against the rezoning and 37 we could move that to the Council in a timely way and get a decision before September 24 that 38 would be what we want to do. I would hate to see you not initiate it and not even have the 39 opportunity to have that discussion or we would be forced to go to the Council and have the 40 Council initiate it, which I am sure they would. They already basically directed us to at least 41 look at ways to do it so I think they would want to have that discussion. 42 43 Commissioner Holman: Has there been any discussion with SummerHill to extend their? 44 45 Mr. Williams: This is an extension. We discussed it early this year. It was March 24 and we got 46 an extra six months. It has just taken a long time to work with the property owner to get 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 language together, get to talk to them, the owners are not readily accessible so we have been working through their realtor to get to this point. I don't think SummerHill would extend it beyond that at this point. We can ask them but I don't think they would. Commissioner Holman: So maybe just one other question here. I need a refresher on this the L Combining District it is not the same as Site and Design so we would not have Site and Design Review of the Dinah's/Trader Vic's site unless they put in four or more units of housing. Is that correct? Mr. Williams: Right. If they put more than four then you would have Site and Design Review of the whole site. Weare just suggesting, what we are talking rezoning is just that panhandle up there that would have it is not in your language here but we are suggesting that when we come back to you we would have that D overlay for that panhandle portion but not for the site. ,J Vice-Chair Tuma: Just a follow up to that. If they were to redevelop the whole site and the panhandle has the Site and Design overlay and they wanted to count that portion of the site in their overall acreage in order to get a certain FAR that wouldn't trigger Site and Design for the whole project? How would then only look at Site and Design for the panhandle in a redevelopment of the entire project? Mr. Williams: Because it would only apply if they are doing -if it is just applying back there it would only apply on that if they are doing something on that section of the property. We could look at that but I think that would be a stretch to try to say that it somehow triggers Site and Design Review for the whole site. I think there is a pretty decent likelihood that there would be Site and Design Review on this site anyway but we don't know that. It may not if it is all hotel but the way things are going with typical future patterns to think that wouldn't be four units of housing or five units of housing on it is unlikely but who knows. Commissioner Holman: I guess the unfortunate part of this is that we are giving up a lot and getting use of the land. If it came later we could maybe get the development of the path as well as part of a project. So I think we have painted ourselves into a really nice comer here. The other possibility, and we couldn't do it tonight because it wasn't noticed, is we wouldn't have to put a D overlay on this because or we wouldn't have to put a D overlay on the other part of the parcel, right? It would automatically be subject if they created .... Mr. Williams: You mean on the part that doesn't have the purple? Chair Garber: The part outside of the red dash. Commissioner Holman: Yes, the part that is outside the red dash. Ifwe put a D overlay, if we wanted to initiate at a different meeting, to put a D overlay over that that would give us assurance of Site and Design. Mr. Williams: Right, it would. If you would like we can explore that with the owner. I would certainly feel pretty strongly that they are going to say no, but we can ask. Page 13 1 2 Commissioner Holman: Well it is our discretion. 3 4 Mr. Williams: It is our discretion is correct but they don't have to then dedicate the easement 5 either. That is what they would pull back. 6 7 Commissioner Holman: I will end there. 8 9 Chair Garber: Comnlissioner Lippert and then we will go to the public. 10 11 Commissioner Lippert: If I might just make a couple of comments here real quick. This 12 discussion that we are having here with regard to this little piece of panhandle is an adjunct to a 13 discussion that City Council had with regard to the Elk's Club site. We can't really discuss the 14 Elk's Club site but it has to do with public and private roads and the connection of being able to 15 get through that site. There was discussion as to how do you make the residential development 16 back there have some connections to the other neighborhoods behind it. 17 18 I was the Planning and Transportation Commission Representative to the Council for the Elk's 19 Club site when they had the discussion of public versus private roads. Part of that discussion 20 was that little piece of panhandle. Curtis is absolutely correct that the developer on that site said 21 we will leave open the opportunity for you to have some connection back there but we are not 22 going to leave it open indefinitely. 23 24 My guess is that as that housing finishes they want to close the book on that connection because 25 they want to sell off the units and they don't want it to rest in the hands of the condominium 26 association that would be on those units. They need to sew things up. 27 28 So my suggestion here is that we have the public hearing on this. We make a decision as to 29 whether or not to initiate the zoning. We can debate the merits all we want but the truth is that 30 until we actually get to implement the zoning you don't really have anything. We ~e just 31 initiating the zoning tonight. Is that correct? 32 33 Mr. Williams: Tonight, yes, and we are planning on coming back in August. 34 35 Commissioner Lippert: So you just leave it for another day. There is no harm in initiating and 36 then later saying forget it we are not going to do it. But if we don't get the ball rolling at this 37 point we are going to lose the opportunity to make the connection that Council was very specific 38 in terms of wanting that connection. 39 40 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg you had a last question. One moment, Commissioner 41 Holman you had a follow up to that? 42 43 Commissioner Holman: We are all asking a lot of questions. Ijust want to make sure we stick 44 with questions so we can get to the public. 45 46 Chair Garber: Yes. You had a question, yes? Page 14 1 2 Commissioner Fineberg: I am actually going to exercise a prerogative and make it two questions 3 because of something Commissioner Lippert just said. Ifwe don't come back and have a 4 hearing on this until August will that leave Council time to and give Staff the ability to perfect 5 the easement and everything by September 24? 6 7 Mr. Williams: Yes. We were planning on coming back to you August 12 and for the Council 8 we are already tentatively scheduled for September 14. 9 10 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thanks. My question then relates to a statement in the Staff 11 Report on the bottom of page 2 and top of page 3. It says, "In order to facilitate the development 12 of the easement it was determined that it would be necessary to amend the zoning and 13 Comprehensive Plan designations to allow the highest and best use of the vacant parcel." I am 14 wondering why the highest and best use was found to be necessary and whether in a negotiation 15 starting off with the assumption that we have to give the highest and best use means that the City 16 will not have a negotiating position as this moves forward. Would we be better off when we 17 consider the initiation to initiate the easement on the entire parcel and that would give the City 18 more control if the property were to be redeveloped. Had it been broached that we would have a 19 greater area of easement? Why is it highest and best rather than higher? 20 21 Mr. Williams: That probably was an unfortunate choice of words. It is not really partiCUlarly 22 relevant what that is. That is what the owner sees as the highest and their best use of the 23 property is that if this area is zoned CS. Then they have, well they already have, some flexibility 24 on their parcel to do commercial, mixed use, or hotel type of use if and when they want to 25 redevelop. So I think it is just giving them the flexibility to do a lot of or a bit more on the 26 property. It really isn't changing the use it is just a matter of the intensity of use that could 27 happen on that front part. 28 29 Commissioner Fineberg: Is there reason that the whole area in the red isn't the easement? 30 Would there be more value to the City with a larger easement area? 31 32 Mr. Williams: There are two reasons why we didn't do that. They were not willing to do the 33 whole area, but also it had been our understanding when this went to the Council the 34 neighborhood had come up and I perceive this as sort of a qualified support of making a 35 connection so long as it was just this short stretch getting from Wilkie Way to this easement that 36 SummerHill had provided and not running it farther than that down the side of the property. 37 38 Chair Garber: Okay, let's move to the public. Thanks again for your patience. We have seven 39 speakers. The first is Millie Davis followed by Deborah Ju. If Deborah Ju would stage yourself 40 so that you can start as soon as Millie is done. Then after Deborah Ju will be Becky Epstein. 41 You will have three minutes. 42 43 Ms. Millie Davis, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live in the Charleston Meadows area. I have lived 44 there since 1958. I appreciate being able to present a few ideas to you tonight. I am glad that the 45 City Council and the Planning Commission are working to establish a bike-pedestrian path 46 between Wilkie Way to the park inside the SummerHill housing project. Page 15 1 2 I heard this issue discussed at the meeting of the Architectural Review Board. It was in October, 3 it was either 2007 or 2008. A tape of that meeting is available at the City Clerk's Office if you 4 are interested. At this meeting one ARB member had said she had gone to Palo Alto schools and 5 that a back entrance to the school where she went in Palo Alto enabled her to ride her bike on the 6 back streets and enter this back entrance. When the school later closed the back entrance she 7 was forced to ride her bike on major streets to get to school. Therefore she said she was very 8 much in favor of this back pedestrian-bike entrance from Wilkie Way into the new housing area. 9 10 Another ARB member commented that since global warming is a problem we may all have to 11 give a little bit in order to take steps to reduce car traffic. So this path can be one of those steps 12 the City can take towards getting people out of cars and onto paths where they can walk or bike. 13 14 After all the new housing along Wilkie has been built and occupied it will be possible t6 assess 15 the parking situation and then determine whether or not any parking permit system is needed. I 16 thus urge the City to go ahead with the path now and wait until the housing projects at this site 17 have been built and occupied before assessing whether it may not be needed, a parking 18 restriction. You can only tell that after all this housing has been built and occupied. Thank you 19 very much. 20 21 Chair Garber: Thank you. Deborah Ju followed by Becky Epstein who if she would come down 22 and stage herself. 23 24 Ms. Deborah Ju, Palo Alto: Our neighborhood had a longstanding problem with overflow 25 parking from the Hyatt and Elk's projects. Based on that experience we worked really hard to 26 make sure that the multifamily housing that went in at Arbor Real and SummerHill didn't pose 27 overflow parking problems to our neighborhood. We were given a lot of assurances and both 28 projects were designed without pedestrian access. 29 30 It is obvious to our neighborhood it was obvious from the start that if you allowed these projects 31 to go forward with narrow private streets and no on street parking there was going to be a 32 parking shortage. Any residential street in our town that you go down you are going to see 33 people parking in front of their homes. Not allow that is not allowing enough parking. So our 34 concerns were overridden and the narrow streets and the no on street parking went through and 35 you can see already that it is not working. Arbor Real has made that clear. Any day that you 36 walk down Wilkie Way by the access, which is at Charleston, you will see cars parked there. 37 Especially at nighttime there are a lot of cars parked along Wilkie Way. 38 39 We know for a fact if you open this access there would be a demand for -it would open up 40 overflow parking into our neighborhood. So we are very pleased to hear the City's 41 responsiveness to this concern and the openness to trying to work out a permit parking process. 42 We really appreciate that. Curtis came to our neighborhood meeting, which was very well 43 attended, and we are really happy to hear, I know there will be a lot of details to work out, but we 44 are very happy to hear that people understand that concern. 45 Page 16 1 I know that is coming out now but it would just be parking from Arbor Real. Deodar is an open 2 street and the parking demand situation at Arbor Real is a real problem. Also, people can go 3 through SummerHill to Elk's and when they have a conference or a wedding or whatever and 4 there is a shortage of parking they can come through that access to Wilkie Way. 5 6 Also we are very concerned about potential development at Dinah's. They had tried to develop 7 before and those plans didn't go anywhere but Ray Handly recently passed away. We don't 8 know what is going to happen on that project. I am concerned about the windfall profit that they 9 are getting through this process. I don't understand why they are getting the whole easement 10 instead of just the purple that we need for the access. I would like to give them as little as 11 possible because that is a big site and it can have big impacts on our neighborhood. Thank you 12 very much. 13 14 Chair Garber: If you want to take a moment to finish up, please do. 15 16 Ms. Ju: Back to the permit parking process I am happy to hear openness to tying that to the 17 opening of the access because I have been around City process for a long, long time and I really 18 am concerned that if it is not tied to the opening of the access we will never see it. If we don't 19 see it the impacts on our neighborhood are going to be great. Thank you very much. 20 21 Chair Garber: Thank you. Becky Epstein followed by Linnea Wickstrom, if Linnea would 22 please approach and stage yourself. 23 24 Ms. Becky Epstein, Palo Alto: Hi, I live closer to the park side than to Wilkie. I just wanted to 25 come tonight to urge you to only approve or recommend the zoning change if it comes with 26 adequate mitigations to protect the Charleston Meadow neighborhood from overflow parking 27 and cut-through traffic. 28 29 I am a former member of the Board for the Charleston Meadows Association and I was involved 30 when the Hyatt Rickey's property came up for redevelopment. Overflow parking and cut- 31 through traffic were addressed in the EIR for the Rickey's site and at multiple City Council 32 meetings. I think as Commissioner Holman suggested it is really worth revisiting those findings 33 particularly the threshold for triggering significant impacts on those neighboring streets. It was 34 not going to take a lot to trigger a significant impact that needed mitigation. 35 36 The result of the process was that the Arbor Real developer was allowed to proceed with a high- 37 density private street development but that access to Wilkie Way would be limited to emergency 38 access only, and that was emergency access only vehicular. It is clear that subsequent City 39 Councils and City Planners regret the lack of connectivity in this area but the City at the time had 40 this goal to create a certain amount of housing, on this corridor, in a small area, and this was an 41 outcome. So I just want to emphasize that the prior prohibitions on Wilkie Way access was a 42 deliberate tradeoff and that is what is pinning us in the comer right now. 43 44 So to now be considering access equity would demand that it comes with mitigations. I certainly 45 do appreciate the outreach meeting that happened in our neighborhood just on June 30. I also do 46 appreciate that Dinah's may be providing a great public benefit here but when you do look at the Page 17 1 numbers they also stand to really reap a substantial profit. So my big question after looking at 2 the Staff Report is why doesn't the rezone plan include a plan for mitigating the negative impacts 3 of the zoning change and the funding source from the developer for such mitigations? I look to 4 the Commission to remedy this and to recommend that the requested zoning change only happen 5 with adequate mitigations. 6 7 It is unfortunate that this part of town has been developed to the point that we have to be 8 concerned about the unintended consequences of access. The current Board of the Charleston 9 Meadows Association voted to support the proposed access provided it also comes with adequate 10 protections including a parking permit program, and sufficient guarantees that the access 11 easement will never be converted to vehicular access or otherwise beconle a means of absorbing 12 overflow parking. I wholeheartedly support the CMA Board's position. It is my opinion that the 13 Board and individual residents would be within their rights to just flat out oppose it based on 14 prior development approvals but I am hopeful that this Commission will set us on a path where 15 we can get the path but also get the mitigations. Thank you. 16 17 Chair Garber: Thank you. Linnea Wickstrom followed by Sara Armstrong. 18 19 Ms. Linnea Wickstronl, Palo Alto: I live right across the bike bridge from Wilkie Way. I am 20 here to support the rezoning of Dinah's to get that easement for the bicycle-pedestrian path. I am 21 now cognizant of a number of concerns on this Commission but I would still like to see the 22 easement. 23 24 I have lived in the neighborhood since 1974 and we have always been able to walk through. It 25 wasn't very pretty but you could always kind of make a loop through and around the 26 neighborhoods in that area. 27 28 While the City through the discussions and actions before took on a public park behind 29 SummerHill the City then effectively hid even sealed off that park, the only access being more 30 than·200 yards offEI Camino down a narrow private road. Public overlay on Deodar side is still 31 a tiny little narrow access~ No one is ever going to find that City park. It is sealed off. 32 33 As you know from our neighborhood's appearances about the Bowl development we are in favor 34 of openness and access and a network of local paths to walk and bike. We think there can be a 35 lot more connectivity here than currently exists. 36 37 The easements are tangential to the zoning change as we understand it can't be conditional. I 38 urge the Commission and Staff to take this opportunity to give the families of the surrounding 39 neighborhoods pedestrian and bicycle access from Wilkie and Monroe to what is a very nicely 40 designed, practical for many uses, and attractive park. I have walked back there it really is a 41 very nice park. 42 43 Though I applaud the Charleston Meadows Association for proposing that they would accept the 44 access, and I think their mitigations are quite reasonable, I would also urge that you did not 45 condition openness, access, and a network for pedestrian and bikes on permit parking. Thank 46 you very much. Page 18 1 2 Chair Garber: Thank you. Sara Armstrong. Do I understand that you are combining your time 3 with the next speaker as well? 4 5 Ms. Sara Armstrong, Palo Alto: Yes if that possible. 6 7 Chair Garber: So you will have six nlinutes then. 8 9 Ms. Armstrong: That is perfect, thank you. I am President of the Charleston Meadows 10 Association Board of Directors and I am speaking on behalf of the Board. We appreciate the 11 opportunity tonight to share our Board's perspective on the proposed zoning change and on the 12 pedestrian-bicycle access to SummerHill. 13 14 First we want to thank Staff, and particularly Planning Director, Curtis Williams, and Planner 15 Elena Lee for their efforts in engaging with members of our neighborhood. We have had several 16 discussions with them included a well attended special neighborhood meeting that heard about, 17 and we were able to have detailed conversations on the merits and the potential impacts of the 18 planned access. 19 20 So as you have heard this is actually quite a sensitive issue for us as a neighborhood because 21 historically Wilkie Way has been and continues to be plagued by overflow parking from 22 developments along EI Camino from years of events at Hyatt and the Elk's Lodge to the current 23 ongoing problems generated from Arbor Real. Our concern is that absent mitigations these 24 parking issues will be exacerbated in the future by both access and by the zone change. 25 Unfortunately the SummerHill development suffers from the same trifecta of parking flaws that 26 characterize a host of developments that were approved around the same time. That is that they 27 have narrow private streets with no on street parking, that resident parking relies entirely on 28 garage parking with no driveway or apron, and third that the guest parking allocation formula 29 that the City uses is woefully inadequate. So we are very concerned that access to the 30 SummerHill development will encourage residents of that complex to also use Wilkie Way as a 31 parking lot. 32 33 In addition, we are concerned that the enhanced zoning and corresponding higher FAR for 34 Dinah's could be problematic for our neighborhood since it is being considered absent any 35 information about their future plans for redevelopment or sale. 36 37 As the same time we do recognize the benefits of pedestrian access both for our own 38 neighborhood and for the future residents of SummerHill and our surrounding neighborhoods as 39 well. So as a matter of equity and in keeping with the assurances of prior City Councils, City 40 Staff to protect our neighborhood from overflow parking we support the pedestrian and bicycle 41 access plan on the condition that the following mitigating strategies be implemented concurrent 42 with the rezoning of this parcel. First, to correct the current issue and diminish future anticipated 43 problems with overflow parking a permit parking program be put into effect on Wilkie Way and 44 the affected residents on the intersecting streets from Whitclem all the way to Charleston Road 45 inclusive of Charleston RQad, since the Charleston-Arastradero plan prohibits on street parking 46 on Charleston. Second, that Dinah's be required to underwrite funding for this permit parking Page 19 1 program in consideration of the enhanced zoning they are poised to receive. Third, that in order 2 to ensure that the access in this area will always be limited to pedestrian and bicycle access, and 3 that no vehicular access will be granted in the future. We request that the access path itself, as 4 Curtis mentioned, would be a width to preclude vehicular use and that the remainder of that 5 easement be planted with mature protected tree species, redwoods and oaks, so that future City 6 Councils, Staffs, and Commissions would find it all the more difficult to reverse the current 7 commitment to no vehicular access on Wilkie. 8 9 We appreciate your work and the consideration of our neighborhood's concerns. Thank you. 10 11 Chair Garber: Thank you. Jean Olmstead, our final speaker. 12 13 Ms. Jean Olmstead, Palo Alto: These are my opinions. First I want to say we had a number of 14 people here that wanted to talk to you. We are fading away with the hour. There are people in 15 Charleston Meadows that are in favor of pedestrian and bicycle access. 16 17 I think the chief thing that I want to say is that this path is something that is going to mean a lot 18 to many people. We don't want to lose it because of this link to the parking problem. I would 19 like to see access dealt with on its own basis and parking be dealt with. The access I have 20 listed some of the things what it means. We could unite neighborhoods rather than isolating 21 them. We can encourage walking and bike riding. Access enables people to keep their cars at 22 home. Access helps non-drivers like children and people who are able but enjoy walking or 23 biking for health or pleasure. 24 25 This parking problem seems to be something that hangs over from the past. People are 26 desperately striving for it. They have forgotten not that we don't see the Hyatt parties. The 27 Hyatt crowds are gone. We are better off in that way. Now the Hyatt people can walk out of 28 their project and park their cars where they will. I don't see that this additional access route, 29 SummerHill has 45 houses, the Hyatt now Arbor Real has 180 or so. The pressures from Hyatt 30 have been deal with in a way that people can still find places to park. People also are having 31 trouble parking because of the corridor study and nobody seems to want to recognize that. Ifwe 32 on Charleston can made due with no parking I think we don't have to panic about dealing with 33 this parking issue. I see nothing wrong with trying to develop a parking system but we have time 34 to think about it. Then we will be able to do that better after the access is in place. We can see 35 what happens and we will know how to deal with it. Thank you. 36 37 Chair Garber: 'Thank you very much and thank you all for your patience. We will move to 38 discussion. Commissioner Keller followed by Holman. 39 40 Commissioner Keller: So I am going to make a motion but before I do that I would like to ask a 41 question of Staff or maybe the Attorney. There were four conditions that were suggested by the 42 Charleston Meadows Neighborhood Association. I am wondering if we are able to take any of 43 those conditions as part of this rezoning or that not germane and it will have to be dealt with 44 separately? 45 Page 20 1 Mr. Williams: No, you cannot as part of the rezoning. I think what you can do, and it wouldn't 2 be appropriate to do as part of the initiation, but as part of the rezoning you could provide 3 direction on the permit parking that we develop that and that we not come back with a pathway 4 until we have explored that with the neighborhood and hopefully instituted something there. If 5 we put the D overlay I think the one issue as far as the design of it because that would have to 6 come through the public process and see how that looks, etc., etc. The issue about having 7 Dinah's pay for part of the permit parking there is no nexus to require that as part of the zoning 8 at this point in time, but if and when Dinah's comes forward with a proposal to do son1ething I 9 think we certainly could explore at that point whether we could get them to pony up dollars to 10 support a permit parking program or if for some reason the pathway were done then we could 11 discuss them constructing the pathway too. What was the fourth? 12 13 Commissioner Keller: So the issue is that these various comments could be taken part of the 14 motion? You are saying that they don't fit in the current motion but they could fit in terms of the 15 rezoning process. 16 17 Mr. Williams: But they still could not be conditions of the rezoning. It would be direction on 18 the parking permit. It would be imposition of the D overlay since part of the rezoning would 19 include the Site and Design component. . 20 21 Commissioner Keller: So could we make a series of things saying we are making a motion for 22 initiating the rezoning plus we make the following policy suggestions to the Council? 23 24 Mr. Williams: At this point that would happen when it comes back and you actually make your 25 recommendations. The initiation doesn't go to the Council. The initiation just means that you 26 will see it back before you. So when it comes back then that is the appropriate time for you to 27 act on a recommendation on the rezoning itself to then provide additional direction or guidance 28 as far as permit parking in particular goes. Assuming that we have a design overlay and a 29 Conditional Use Permit that requires a public process for the pathway that is also a check in time 30 to be sure we have parking issues addressed too or Councilor Commission can say no, this is not 31 the right time for it. 32 33 This is not a big project so I don't think it is going to be a major CIP project but it might be a 34 CIP proj ect that gets a number and comes through that process as well. So there might be input 35 on it at that stage as well. 36 37 Commissioner Keller: I believe Commissioner Fineberg had a question. 38 39 Commissioner Fineberg: You have said it several times but you said it again now that there is no 40 nexus for the rezoning of this parcel with a parking permit requirement on the street that it is 41 contiguous to. Why is there no nexus if this is a project and there are impacts caused by people 42 and their use of that property, why is there not nexus to the impacts of the closest neighbors? 43 44 Mr. Williams: Well, I think what I am saying is there isn't a project at this point. There is an 45 easement that the City is initiating. The City is not the one -ultimately when there is a pathway 46 and when there is redevelopment of the Dinah's site there is something to assess what that Page 21 1 impact is, but the easement itself is not doing that. The easement is not there is a rezoning, so 2 it is not the easement. You are dealing with the rezoning, and that is your action not the 3 easement. So with a rezoning you are correct there is a potential that there could be more 4 development on the Dinah's site but we don't really know that until there is a project, and also 5 just frankly know that they are not going to pay money for those uses at this point in time until 6 they actually have some development that they know is going to generate income for them. 7 8 Commissioner Fineberg: So is there any chance, and you may have answered that in the last part 9 of what you said. We can't condition the change in the zoning. Can we condition the 10 requirements of the easement? We have the chicken and egg that we have to have the easement 11 in hand before we will grant the zoning change. Can we condition the easement with what the 12 neighborhood is asking for? 13 14 Mr. Williams: No. The easement is a legal document that just defines what that area is allowed 15 for. What you can do, like I said, you can condition a project that comes through on Dinah's 16 subsequently, you can condition when there is a pathway project that comes before you, which 17 there would be at some point in time. At that point you could condition. 18 19 Commissioner Fineberg: We can condition the change of zoning on the existence of the 20 easement. No? 21 22 Ms. Tronguet: Weare not conditioning anything here. What we are doing is rezoning. The 23 conditions are a little premature at this point because nothing is happening except sort of this 24 rezone, which puts a different zone on the property, but there are no actual impacts reSUlting yet 25 from that rezone. 26 27 Commissioner Fineberg: So how do we know that the rezone won't go through and then they 28 don't grant the easement? 29 30 Mr. Williams: Because we will have before you and I would not expect you and the Council to 31 approve the rezoning unless you have seen the easement, which we will have signed and in hand 32 before the Council actually approves the zoning. 33 34 Commissioner Fineberg: So again, I am sorry but I think this is going to be a major process 35 distinction that we need to understand. If the rezoning comes back to the Commission we would 36 then expect to have an easement negotiated. Can there be an indication from the Planning 37 Commission that we would also expect to see other items like a payment for permit parking, and 38 then we don't approve the rezoning unless that is present? Would that work? 39 40 Chair Garber: I don't know if I am going to be successful but let me try a couple of things here. 41 One, the task that the Council set forth for Staff relies on a variety ofnloving parts of which only 42 one is the Commission. A n1:ll11ber of the pieces rely on drivers that are significantly outside the 43 Commission's role and auspice. So however our action is the lynchpin to causing these other 44 pieces to occur and there are a series of agreements, which structure those things that happen, 45 and it is not for the Commission to try and take control or fmd ways to cause those things to 46 happen. Once a project is applied for conditions can be made to projects, but initiation is just Page 22 1 simply a let's go, and then let's figure out what the project is. When we have that project it 2 comes back. I apologize we have to get back to Commissioner Keller's action here. 3 Commissioner Lippert, you had maybe something else hopeful to say? 4 5 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. The action we are taking tonight is not binding. All that we are 6 doing is initiating the discussion of the rezoning. What we are basically doing tonight is we are 7 saying yes this is something we want to look at, although it is not binding that our decision is in 8 concrete and moves forward as a formal recommendation to Council at this point. 9 10 Chair Garber: Let's come back to Commissioner Keller. You still have the floor. 11 12 MOTION 13 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I move Staff recommendation with the change that the zone 14 change would be to CS with L Combining District and D Site and Design overlay. 15 16 Chair Garber: Do I hear a second? 17 18 SECOND 19 20 Commissioner Holman: Second. 21 22 Chair Garber: Seconded by Commissioner Holman. Would the nlaker like to speak to his 23 motion? 24 25 Commissioner Keller: Firstly, what we have here is the initiation of a chicken and then before 26 we actually create the chicken by rezoning we will be handed the egg by the owner of Dinah's 27 property and then we will be able to determine whether we want to actually do the rezone for the 28 chicken. So that is how you handle the chicken and egg problem by essentially bifurcating it. 29 30 I feel really bad for the residents of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood. Essentially what 31 happened is you were told that there would not be access to Wilkie Way and somehow that was 32 sufficient mitigation for an under-parked, overly built development. We don't have to wait for 33 the completion of the Elk's redevelopment, both parts of it, from the SummerHill and the Elk's. 34 We already know that there is an overflow parking problem from Arbor Real alone. It is 35 reasonable to expect that there may well be a comparable under-parking problem and overflow 36 parking problem from the SummerHill project because it is essentially similar kinds of density 37 and similar kind of parking rules. So essentially I think that the neighborhood is being very 38 accommodating by saying okay, it is reasonable to consider having the easement to provide a 39 pedestrian and bicycle path to the park in such a way that we should also try to implement a 40 parking permit system. For the various reasons of the questions I raised earlier I have concerns 41 about whether it will actually be feasible to create a permit parking system particularly since the 42 biggest part of the parking problem appears to be overnight. I doubt that it will be easy to have 43 parking enforcement agents wandering around at night unless there is deputization of residents to 44 be able to plaster those parking tickets all over the errant cars. 45 Page 23 1 I do think that this also indicates that we should reconsider the adequacy of parking for 2 multifamily residential. I think that should come back to us at some point in the future. 3 4 I think when this does come back to us, because now we are initiating it, we will then consider 5 the rezoning. When this comes back to us as I understand from Staffwe will be able to consider 6 the policy questions of encouraging the permit parking system to be created and address some of 7 the other issues such as not allowing vehicular access. I think that the Site and Design overlay 8 does I understand with that. 9 10 In terrhs of the CIP project the idea of producing mature protected trees that will discourage the 11 City from every trying to put cars through that I think makes sense. 12 13 With respect to Dinah's being required to underwrite parking, ideally it should have been the 14 Elk's that underwrites the parking permit system and Arbor Real underwriting the parking permit 15 system. In some sense the Elk's is at the end of a train of development and that seems to be sort 16 of some idea of where the money comes from but in some sense the other developments have 17 been approved and we are too late to ask the developers who are at fault causing the problem to 18 pay for fixing the problem that they have caused. That is unfortunate but nonetheless I do 19 understand that the tinle to ask Dinah's for paying for a parking permit system will be when they 20 redevelop, which for all we know could be years after the permit parking system is in fact 21 supposed to be implemented if it happens any time soon. So we don't know the timing of the 22 Dinah's redevelopment so that presents a problem in terms of that nexus. I would encourage the 23 City Attorney when this comes back to us to explain exactly how that would happen in terms of 24 this and what the nature of it is. Hopefully the fact that the City now understands how to 25 implement a residential parking permit system will help facilitate the creation of such a system. 26 Tharik you. 27 28 Chair Garber: Would the seconder like to speak? 29 30 Commissioner Holman: First I have one question for Staff. Does Staffhave any inkling of what 31 the proposal is going to be on the larger portion of the parcel? 32 33 Mr. Williams: No we don't. They have just talked in vague generalities about the potential to 34 expand or create a new hotel but they have also talked about the potential to do more of a 35 commercial development rather than a hotel too. We have not had any discussions of square 36 footage, design, layout, or anything. They just were asking when we talked to them about this 37 generally about what the implications were of zoning for those types of uses. I don't think they 38 even mentioned residential at the time. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: The reason I ask is because I just want to make sure we weren't 41 violating CEQA by segmenting the projects. That was the thrust of the question. 42 43 Except for the initial comments having to do chicken and egg that Commissioner Keller 44 mentioned I agree with most of his comments. I disagree with one of the things that he said 45 though, which is that it is not the developer's fault the situation that we are in, neither is it the 46 neighbor's fault. It is the City's fault for not working out the situation and for not providing Page 24 1 adequate parking, requiring adequate parking. In these situations it is not the developer's fault. 2 So I disagree with that comment. 3 4 I think it is also unfortunate because there essentially was if you will a promise made to the 5 neighbors and now we are kind of going back on that promise. I seconded the motion because 6 there has already been Council direction to do this. So in one fashion or another we really don't 7 have too much latitude on whether it is going to happen or not. When it does come back I think, 8 as Commissioner Keller and others have mentioned there are going to be a number of 9 recommendations that go to Council with the rezoning. 10 11 The only other things I have say are that I think it is really unfortunate that the easement doesn't 12 go· all the way to the end of the panhandle. I think it is really unfortunate that this isn't coming 13 along with a project so we have more discretion and could get better value. I think we are 14 getting essentially about a 6,500 square foot lot, is it even that? We are getting about a 6,500 15 square foot lot with an easement on it in exchange for development potential of 26,000 square 16 feet of hotel for instance. I don't think it is a very good tradeoff. I don't fault Staff for that 17 either, the situation that you were put in to try to work something out to resolve this. It is a series 18 of unfortunate circumstances and events that early on could have been resolved. So that is all I 19 have to say. 20 21 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Rosati absent) 22 23 Chair Garber: Commissioners, lets vote. All those in favor of the motion as stated say aye. 24 (ayes) All opposed? The motion passes unanimously with Commissioners Holman, Keller, 25 Garber, Tuma, Fineberg, and Lippert voting aye, no nays, and Commissioner Rosati absent. This 26 closes the public hearing and closes the item. Thank you very nluch for those that have stayed 27 through it all. 28 Page 25 ATTACHMENT H PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: Elena Lee, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: August 12, 2009 SUBJECT: 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real: Requests to Amend: (1) the Zoning Map to Change the Zone Designation of an approximately 13,200 square foot portion of Dinah's Hotel property from the RM-15 (Residential Multi- Family) Zone to the CS(L)(D) (Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design Review) Combining Districts and (2) the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of the same property from Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel at 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been conlpleted and a draft Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration (Attachment F). 2. Approve the attached Resolution for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the land use designation for an approximately 13,200 square foot (sq. ft.) site from Multiple Family Residential to Commercial Hotel (Attachment A). 3. Approve the attached Ordinance to change the site's zone district from RM -15 Multi- Family to CS(L )(D) Service Commercial with Landscape and Site and Design Review Cornbining Districts (Attachment B). . BACKGROUND: The proposed project is a City-initiated rezoning of a small portion of a 139,010 sq. ft. parcel of land (Dinah's Hotel property) having two zone districts; the RM-15, Multiple-Family zone, and the CS(H) zone, Service Commercial with Hotel Combining District. The 13,200 sq. ft. portion of the parcel is proposed to be rezoned to the CS(L)(D) Service Commercial zone with Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts. The site is also proposed for a Comprehen&ive Plan Amendnlent so that it would be re-designated as Commercial Hotel, City Page 1 of8 changed from Multiple-Family Residential, to be consistent with the proposed commercial zone. The project site is one of two parcels that are owned by the same property owner. The front 81,876 sq. ft. parcel is developed with the Trader Vic restaurant. The rear parcel, which also includes the area proposed for re-designation, is developed with the Dinah's Hotel. On July 8,2009, the PTC voted 6-0-1 to initiate the zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment. The undeveloped project site, having only 39.9 feet of frontage on Wilkie Way and a depth of329.8 feet, is the rear "pan handle" portion of the Dinah's Hotel property, which has street frontages on EI Camino Real and Dinah's Court. The subject area to be rezoned is approximately 9% of the overall lot area. The remainder (91 % of the site), where the hotel (approximately 51,370 sq. ft. of floor area in one-story to three-story buildings) is located, would remain as currently zoned (CS-H). The CS Service Commercial Zoning District was modified in 2005, as part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update, to allow hotel uses, at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2: 1. The H Hotel Combining District is no longer necessary for hotel use on properties zoned CS. The proposed Commercial Hotel land use designation allows facilities, such as hotels and motels, along with associated conference centers and other similar uses. Other uses typically associated with hotels, such as restaurants and supporting services, are also allowed. The CS Service Commercial zone designation is intended to create and maintain areas for citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian oriented shopping areas, and which are more automobile-oriented. Mixed use development is allowable in the CS zone, when designed in accordance with context based design criteria with up to 30 residential units per acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 1 : 1 for all uses. The RM-15 zone generally allows residential development up to 15 units per acre, with single- family and multiple-family housing that is compatible with lower density and residential districts nearby. The Multiple Family Residential land use designation generally allows residential projects having densities ranging from eight to 40 units per acre and eight to 90 persons per acre. Pedestrian Access This project site was identified for re-designation based on Council direction to study ways to obtain access rights on the subject site to connect to a pedestrianlbicyc1e path easement offered by SummerHill Homes on the Redwood Gate residential development on the Elks Lodge site. SummerHill Homes had agreed to dedicate a public path from the property line shared with the Dinah's Hotel site to the public park on the SummerHill residential site, provided that the City obtain access rights by September 24,2009. The intent is to prohibit vehicular access, but allow pedestrian or bicycle access to enhance more direct connectivity to the SummerHill public park. Staff identified the approximately 13,200 sq. ft. vacant site that is part of the adjacent hoteVrestaurant site as providing a potential connection from Wilkie Way to the SummerHill easement and the public park. In order to facilitate the development of the easement, it was determined that it would be necessary to amend the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations. The re-designation would serve three purposes. It would bring consistency to the designations on the hotel and restaurant parcels, provide a buffer for the adj acent residential parcels, and restrict the use of the area in a way that would allow a path to be constructed. City \ I DISCUSSION The proposed land use designation is an amendment from the current Multiple Family Residential designation to Commercial Hotel. The proposed zoning is an amendment from the current RM-15 Multi-Family residential designation to the Service Commercial with Landscaping and Site and Design Review Combining Districts (CS(L)(D)). These designations would match the remainder of the Dinah's Hotel property, already developed with commercial uses. The re-designation and rezoning would bring consistency to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations for the larger area. The proposed Landscaping (L) and Site and Design Review (D) Combining Districts, providing additional regulation and requirements to help ensure that development and use of the 13,200 sq. ft. parcel is consistent with the adjacent uses and needs. Zone Change Process The process for a City-initiated zone changeis outlined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code under Chapter 18.98. The steps are summarized below: • The City Council or Planning and Transportation Commission directed the Planning Director to initiate a zoning amendment on July 8, 2009. • The Con1IDission sets a date for a regular or special meeting, including a public hearing and notice to the subject 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. This is the task of the Commission tonight. • The decision of the Conlmission is forwarded to the City Council, including the Commission's finding and determinations for the requested zone change. Upon notice and a public hearing, the City Council takes final action regarding the zoning. This hearing is tentatively scheduled for September 14, 2009. • The Comprehensive Plan designation follows the same review process as the rezoning and will be done concurrently with the rezoning, Basis for Comprehensive Plan and Zone Changes The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance identify fmdings that are necessary for any designation changes. In order to adopt a resolution changing a Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation, the City Council must find the following: "That the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region require amendment of the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan", For any proposed rezoning, the Con1IDission and Council must fmd that the public interest, health and welfare require an amendment to the Zoning Map, and that such changes would be in accordance with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Title and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has determined that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment will benefit the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region in that the changes will bring consistency to the land use designations of the area and will facilitate the development of a better buffer and transition between surrounding land uses. The proposed zoning amendment will bring consistency to the zoning designation of the property as a whole and will be consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan designation. Page 3 of8 Consistency of Designations The pan handle is the last remaining vacant portion of a two parcel site that is already developed with restaurant and hotel uses for quite a number of years. The vacant area makes up approximately 9% of a larger property that is owned by one property owner. As discussed above, the majority of the site is commercially designated. Because of the residentially designated portion's limited street frontage, narrow width and significant depth, it has not been developed for the residential use it is zoned for. The designation is also not compatible with the existing uses or commercial zoning designation of the remainder of the site. Buffer and Transition The subject site is located directly adjacent to lower density residential lots on two sides (Charleston Meadows zoned R-l) and multi-family development on the other sides (SummerHill residences and Wilkie Way apartments zoned RM-15). The Landscape (L) Combining District would ensure the provision of landscaped open space to provide a physical and visual separation between residential districts to the north, east and west and more intensive commercial uses along EI Camino Real. The zoning, in combination with the pedestrian access easement, will also prohibit vehicular access to/from Wilkie Way (except for emergency vehicles), further protecting the neighborhood. While the RM -15 zone can and has been used to serve as a transition district between the R-l district and hotel site, the proposed zoning will strengthen the requirement for the this portion of the Dinah's Hotel property to serve only as a transitional buffer. Since the intent is to develop a pedestrian/bicycle pathway on approximately 6,000 sq. ft., the Landscape (L) Combining District would require landscaping in the remainder of the 13,200 square feet of the parcel. These requirements would make it more difficult for an applicant to propose any other type of development. The City may not legally condition the rezoning on the easement dedication. Staff will have a signed easement in advance of any Council action on the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment. The proposed Site and Design (D) Review combining district will also help to ensure the site will remain as an appropriate buffer and transition between the hotel site's commercial uses and the less intense residential properties. The intent of this combining district is to provide a review and approval process for sites that are considered environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas. This includes the environmentally sensitive Open Space zoning district, but also sites that are considered sensitive to negative environmental impacts such as noise, traffic or aesthetics. The Site and Design Review combining district establishes a review process that will ensure that development on this parcel will serve as an appropriate and harmonious transition between the commercial uses on the site and the adj acent residential parcels. In addition, the L Landscaping combining district also requires a conditional use permit for pedestrian and bicycle pathways, providing another review process to ensure that the development of any pathways would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Wilkie Way Access Commissioner Holman requested a follow up on whether the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified for the nearby Hyatt Rickey's project (now Arbor Real) addressed cut-through traffic and overflow parking on Wilkie Way and if the project was prohibited from allowing access to Wilkie Way, except for emergency access. The redevelopment proj ect initially included housing and a hotel. However, the applicant revised the project during the process by removing the hotel component and reducing the number of housing units. The EIR concluded that there would be no significant traffic impact to the character of Wilkie Way based on the City Page 4 ) standard Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) Index Assessment. Additionally, when the project was reduced in scope and the hotel proposal was removed, the impact was reduced even further. However, when a comparative assessment to the TIRE analysis was done using a more stringent threshold, a recommendation to limit vehicular access to emergency vehicles only was made. The applicant revised the Arbor Real project to allow only emergency vehicular access fronl Wilkie Way, so there were no further issues with this item. Overflow parking was identified as a concern initially only because the original proj ect included a hotel component that did not provide the required number of parking spaces. When the applicant removed the hotel component, the parking facilities for the project were no longer deficient as the required number of residential and guest spaces were provided on site as set forth in the Municipal Code. Therefore, overflow parking was no longer an EIR issue and no mitigation measures were imposed regarding either parking or vehicular access to Wilkie Way. Staffhas provided an excerpt of the Resolution certifying the EIR for the revised Hyatt Rickey's development as Attachment N. Floor Area Increase The rezoning of the site would allow an increase in the allowable commercial floor area for the entire hotel/restaurant property if it is redeveloped. The new designation would allow the owners of the Dinah's Hotel property to add 26,400 sq. ft. of hotel floor area to the developed area of the 139,010 sq. ft. parcel, since a 2:1 FAR is allowed for hotel use. Alternatively, up to 5,280 sq. ft. of non-hotel commercial floor area could be added to the developed portion of the site. The following Table 1 is an analysis of the maximum floor area that could be allowed if the subject area is rezoned to the CS(L)(D) designation. Parcell is the Trader Vics parcel (4269 EI Camino Real) and Parcel 2 is the 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real site. The CS portion of Parcel 2 is the existing hotel and the RM-15 portion is the 13,200 sq. ft. area to be rezoned. Any development proposal, including requests for this additional square footage, would be subject to a development review process. Staff is not aware of any redevelopment plans at this time. Table 1-Floor Area Maximums Currently Commercial (Non-Hotel Only allowed: Hotel) 2:1 0.4:1 Parcell 32,750 sq. ft. 163,752 sq. ft. 81,876 sq. ft. Parcel 2 (CS 50,324 sq. ft. 251,620 sq. ft. portion) 125,810 sq. ft. Parcel 2 (RM-15 N/A* N/A* portion) 13,200 (Subject Parcel) Total 83,074 sq. ft. 441,772 sq. ft. City Page 5 Proposed Parcell 32,750 sq. ft. 163,752 sq. ft. 81,876 sq. ft. Parcel 2 (CS 50,324 sq. ft. 251,620 sq. ft. portion) 139,010 sq. ft. Parcel 2 (Rezoned 5,280 sq. ft. 26,400 sq. ft. portion/Subject Parcel) 13,200 (New) Total 88,354 sq. ft. 468,172 sq. ft. * If developed under the RM-15 zoning district, this area would allow a maximum of up to 6,600 sq. ft. of multi-family development. Neighborhood Requests In a July 8, 2009 letter (Attachment 0), the Board of Directors of the Charleston Meadows Association made three requests that they would like the City to concurrently incorporate into approvals to the Conlprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation changes for the subject site. The three requests comprise of: • Plant protected Redwood and Oak trees on the site in such a way that when mature, City ordinance requirements to protect those trees will in effect prohibit the development of any vehicular access ways to Wilkie Way. • Implement a permit parking pro gram on Wilkey Way. • Require the property owner of the subject site to underwrite the permit parking program. Vehicular Access: The intent is to develop the site for pedestrian and bicycle connections. The L Landscape and D Site and Design Review Combining Districts contain provisions for multiple reviews, including a requirement for a conditional use permit, and public processes to ensure that the design of any improvements meet the City's goals. The public processes provide opportunities for input from the public. Permit Parking: Staff is supportive of exploring a neighborhood permit parking program prior to moving forward with the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning. However, staffwould prefer not to tie the implementation ofa program to this process due to the uncertainty of neighborhood support for the parking program. Staff can work with the neighborhood concurrently to facilitate both the City's and neighborhood's goals. Funding for Permit Parking: The Charleston Meadows Association is requesting that the property owner be required to fund any permit parking pro gram because the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment would potentially increase the amount of floor area the property owner would be allowed. However, because the property owner is not the applicant of this redesignation request, the City cannot require a contribution because there is no nexus between the action and the proposed requirenlent. Staff can review whether a contribution is appropriate and when the property owner proposes redevelopment of the site. City Page 6 of8 POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The changes are proposed to provide a pennanent buffer between the commercial uses on the site and the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, to allow for enhanced pedestrian connections, and to bring consistency to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations for one property. Staff believes that the rezoning would facilitate the achievement of several goals, policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan. The changes would not only bring consistency to the designations of the entire parcel, but would promote development that would be designed to provide an appropriate transition between the more intense commercial uses appropriate for parcels along El Camino Real and the less intense residential parcels of the new Redwood Gate development and the Wilkie Way residences. The new designations would encourage pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between the neighboring properties and the new Redwood Gate public park, while protecting adjacent properties with the requirement for adequate landscaping. The project specifically supports the following goals, policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan: • Goal L-l: A well designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities, and open spaces • Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto's varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto's desirable qualities. • Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at midblock locations rather than along streets whenever possible. • Program L-4: Review and change zoning regulations to promote gradual transitions in the scale of development where residential districts abut more intense uses. • Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods. • Goal L-2: An enhanced sense of "community" with development designed to foster public life and meet citywide needs • Policy L-ll: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. • Goal L-3: Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character and within walking distance of shopping, services, schools, and/or other public gathering places. • Policy L-15: Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such spaces. • Policy L-61: a Promote the use of community and cultural centers, libraries, local schools, parks, and other comnlunity facilities as gathering places. Ensure that they are inviting and safe places that can deliver a variety of community services during both daytime and evening hours. • Policy L-64: Seek potential sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces, open space, and community gardens that encourage and support pedestrian and bicycle travel and person-to-person contact, particularly in neighborhoods that lack these amenities. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues related to the rezoning, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City Page 7 of8 completed a 20-day public review period on July 23,2009. A copy of the environmental document is provided as Attachment F. No comments have been received on the document. PUBLIC OUTREACH: Public Hearing notices have been mailed out to the subject property owner and owners/occupants of properties located within 600 feet of the site. Staffhas also spoken to and met with area residents and the neighborhood association several times. Staff attended a Charleston Meadows Association meeting on June 30,2009, to discuss the proposal and to answer questions. Some residents have expressed support for the new connection. Neighborhood residents and association representatives spoke at the July 8, 2009 PTC initiation of this Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Some residents expressed support for the re-designation and pathway while some Charleston Meadows residents have continued to express concerns that the proposed access will cause more drivers to park on Wilkie Way. A request has been made to the City to implement a parking permit program prior to making the SummerHill easement open to the public, as a potential solution to prevent overflow parking, which staff will consider as plans for the access path move through the approval process as discussed above. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment I: Attachment J: Attachment K: Attachment L: Attachment M: Attachment N: Attachment 0: Draft Resolution Ordinance Draft Ordinance Parcel (Zoning) Map Comprehensive Plan Map Easement Map Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration July 8, 2009 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (without attachments) July 8,2009 Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes PAMC Chapter 18.16 (CS Service Commercial) P AMC Chapter 18.30(E) Landscape (L) Combining District PAMC Chapter 18.30(G) Site and Design Review (D) Combining District Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Commercial Land Use Designation Definition Excerpt of Transportation Section of Resolution No. 8432 for the Hyatt Rickey's Development EIR Letter from Subject Property Owner Letter from the Charleston Meadow Association Board of Directors COURTESY COPIES: Martha Miller, Administrative Service Department, Real Estate David Conklin, Property Owner Representative Sara Armstrong, President, Charleston Meadows Association Prepared by: Elena Lee, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Current PIF\ing Manager DepartmentIDivision Head Approval: ~ ~0~ Curtis Williams, Director City Page 8 of8 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 August 12, 2009 4 5 EXCERPT 6 7 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real*: Requests for: (1) an Amendment to the Zoning Map to 8 Change the Zone Designation of an approximately 13,200 square foot portion of Dinah's Hotel 9 property from the RM-15 (Residential Multi-Family) Zone to CS(L)(D) (Service Commercial 10 with Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining Districts) Zoning and (2) a Resolution 11 Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of the same property from Multiple 12 Family Residential to Commercial Hotel at 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real. Environmental 13 Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a draft Negative Declaration has been 14 prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. 15 16 Ms. Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair and Commissioners. The project before you is 17 a second step of a rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment request that the Con1ll1ission 18 initiated on July 8. The proposal is a City initiated request to rezone the vacant 13,200 square 19 foot portion of the Dinah and Trader Vic Hotel site from RM-15 to Service Commercial with a 20 Landscape and Site and Design Review Combining District. The proposal also includes a 21 Comprehensive Plan Amendment from multifamily residential to commercial hotel. The 22 proposed changes would bring all the subject properties, zoning, and land use designation into 23 consistency. A Negative Declaration and initial study have been prepared and circulated. No 24 comments have been received at this time. 25 26 This proposal was initiated based on Council direction to study obtaining a walkway easement 27 on the hotel site that would connect to an easement on the adjacent SummerHill Redwood Gate 28 residential development, which has an ending date of September 24. Staff has put at places this 29 evening correspondences received from the public that were subsequent to distribution of the 30 Staff Report and as well Staffs responses to email questions from Commissioner Holman. ' 31 32 Staffrequests that the Commission recommend the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration 33 and approve the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Staffproposes to concurrently 34 work with the Charleston Meadows Association to address their concerns and to keep them 35 informed should a pathway be constructed. Staff is available to answer questions. This 36 concludes Staffs report. 37 38 Chair Garber: Commissioners I would like to move directly to, excuse me Planning Director? 39 40 Mr. Curtis Williams, Planning Director: I just wanted to reiterate that we did provide you with a 41 copy of the easement document. It is a draft easement document it is not the final signed 42 version. There may be a couple of typos or technical corrections to it. That is provided for your 43 information. That is not before you tonight to nl0dify, review, change, but it is pertinent, and I 44 know you are interested in what the easement says and would do to get access from Wilkie Way 45 the park. So I just wanted to let you know that was emailed to you and is attached in the 46 materials before you tonight. Page 1 1 2 Chair Garber: Thank you. There are two items related to that. You had mentioned that the 3 answers to Commissioner Holman's questions were at places and I am not seeing that. 4 5 Mr. Williams: Unfortunately I think it is attached as 'the last couple of pages to the packet of 6 correspondence. The easement document is on the top of that packet and I think the last couple 7 pages are the responses to Commissioner Holman's questions. 8 9 Chair Garber: Also, let me ask the Commissioners here. I know that some of you would like to 10 read the easement. It appears to be five pages not including the attachments. Would it be 11 appropriate for us to take four or five minutes to read that? Commissioner Holman. 12 13 Commissioner Holman: I for one would appreciate that. Also, because the questions and 14 answers were not submitted to us previously could the Staff just quickly go over those so that 15 they are on the public record? It would just take a couple of minutes to do that if that agrees with 16 the Chair. 17 18 Mr. Williams: If I could just clarify. Did you not receive these by email this afternoon? 19 20 Chair Garber: That is correct. 21 22 Mr. Williams: Okay, Zariah informed us that she had emailed them out. I apologize for that. 23 24 Chair Garber: So if you would walk us through those. 25 26 Ms. Lee: Question number one was noting that Exhibit A to the Comprehensive Plan Resolution 27 was not attached. Basically, Attachment D will become Exhibit A as the Comprehensive Plan 28 Resolution for the Council adoption. 29 30 Question number two is the request for the easement. The easement has been provided. 31 32 Question number three, Commissioner Holman said, I do not see the public interest, health, and 33 safety are satisfied by the statements in the Staff Report. Please provide others. The change 34 does not bring consistency to the Comprehensive Plan designation as it is abutted on both sides 35 by the multifamily designations. The panhandle is an anonlaly. Subsection B the logic runs 36 counter to the Comprehensive Plan change providing better transition and buffer as to the 40 foot 37 width it could not be developed intensely and the RM zoning designation would provide 38 transition from the CS zoning district. Staff s response is that Staff is looking at consistency for 39 the entire Dinah's property, which is not just that rear piece to the lot. The nlajority of that 40 property has a Service Commercial designation so we are looking at consistency with that as 41 well as other properties along EI Camino Real. Because the whole two parcels have been 42 historically developed for commercial uses Staff sees this change as being consistent with that 43 history. An alternate statement could be the proposed commercial hotel designation while 44 dissimilar to two of the three immediately adjoining properties it is consistent with the 45 designation for the remainder of the site and the Comprehensive Plan policies and programs for Page 2 1 providing transitions and buffers since the proposed landscape combining district would restrict 2 the use of the site to ensure the provision of an adequate buffer. 3 4 In terms of the second part of question number three the RM-15 zone does provide a transition 5 because it does limit the type of development, however, Staff believes that the landscape 6 combining district as well as the(D) Site and Design Overlay provide a better transition because 7 it pretty much limits it to landscaping. It prevents any kind of development therefore no 8 vehicular access would be allowed on this site, versus with a multifamily development where 9 that might be proposed. So Staff believes that this additional review of Site and Design Review 10 process as well as the landscaping does provide a better transition that would meet the needs of 11 the City's policies as well as the Charleston Meadows Association. 12 13 For question number four Staffhas provided a revised land use designation map that clearly '14 differentiates between the multifamily and the multifamily with H Overlay. 15 16 Number five, Commissioner Holman asked why we would not agree to including conditioning 17 oaks and redwoods in the site. Also, permit parking report states that we will work with the 18 neighborhood concurrently. Concurrently with what? Staff will continue to work with the 19 residents. We are having an ongoing dialogue currently and we are proposing to continue that. 20 That would include permit parking and landscaping. 21 22 At such time the path and landscape improvements and the easement are funded and proposed 23 Staff will continue to work with the applicants. The permit parking will be reviewed with the 24 neighborhood in advance of implementation of improvements. As well as all improvements 25 would be subject to a development permit requirement, which do require public review and a 26 public process. For example, any future pathway would require a Conditional Use Permit. That 27 would include design review. If requested that Conditional Use Permit would be heard and 28 reviewed by the Planning Commission for recommendation to and final decision by the City 29 Council. So at that time Staff would continue to work with the community to make sure that all 30 of these requirements including the trees as well as a permit parking are worked on. 31 32 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, did you have any follow up? 33 34 Commissioner Holman: No we can do that during our question and answer. Thank you. 35 36 Chair Garber: All right. There are two clarifications, Elena. Commissioner Keller was 37 mentioning one of the two to me. We wanted to clarify one of the sentences. I think it was in 38 item seven. No I apologize that is item number two. Commissioner Keller what was your item 39 here? 40 41 Commissioner Keller: Just for the benefit of the people commenting who might not have had a 42 chance to read that could you please read into the record for the draft easement agreement item 43 number three and what the implications of that are? Who that is binding upon? 44 45 Chair Garber: What are you reading from there? 46 Page 3 1 Commissioner Keller: I am reading from item number three of the draft easement agreement. 2 This thing put at places. It is on the second page. 3 4 Mr. Williams: It says the easement property shall be used for pedestrian and bicycle use only 5 and vehicular use shall be prohibited except for emergency vehicle use, fire, and police. It is 6 binding on whoever uses the easement. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: So that is binding on both the grantor and the grantee, presumably? 9 10 Mr. Williams: Right. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: So binding the City and binding on the property owner. 13 14 Mr. Williams: Right. 15 16 Conlffiissioner Keller: Thank you. 17 18 Chair Garber: With that let us go to the public comment. Do you want to take the four minutes 19 now? Okay. We will have brief reading period of four minutes and then we will start the public 20 comments. Commissioner Holman. 21 22 Commissioner Holman: I just want to make sure that copies of this are available for the public to 23 read as well. Are there copies at the back of the room? 24 25 Chair Garber: Staff? 26 27 Mr. Williams: Yes, there are copies back there. 28 29 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. 30 31 Chair Garber: One minute. Let us open the public meeting. Our first speaker this evening is 32 Jean Olmstead followed by Linnea Wickstrom. You will have three minutes. 33 34 Ms. Jean Olmstead, Palo Alto: I am speaking for myself not for the Charleston Meadows 35 Neighborhood Association. I first want to thank the Staff for all the work they have done so 36 quickly to make it possible to obtain pedestrian and bicycle access from Wilkie to the 37 SummerHill public park. 38 39 At this point I am pleased to hear that everyone now supports bicycle and pedestrian access. I 40 must also ask you to make sure that permit parking is not required to be in place before access 41 can be made available to the pUblic. Why not? The simplest reason is that there is no parking 42 deficiency in the Wilkie area. I and others have been doing a traffic count. I sent you a report 43 that shows that only about one-third of the available parking was being used on Wilkie and 44 nearby streets during the period of July 15 to August 6. People are not going to pay for permit 45 parking when they are not having trouble finding parking places. The dreaded overflow from Page 4 1 Arbor Real tumed out to a possible eight cars at the maximum on one day, August 4. It was less 2 before and has been less since that time. 3 4 One of the parkers told me that August 4 was the day Arbor Real would start to tow cars without 5 a permit that were parked in guest parking places in Arbor Real from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM. 6 Arbor Real has dealt with their guest parking problem. 7 8 Your job is to make the decision that most benefits the public good. Access now comes out way 9 ahead. Thank you. 10 11 Chair Garber: Thank you. Linnea Wickstrom followed by Stephanie Tramz. 12 13 Ms. Linnea Wickstrom, Palo Alto: Hello. I live right around the comer and I often walk the 14 Wilkie Way neighborhood. I would like to be able togo into the lovely new park that has been 15 created there. I note that several people have independently done little counts on the parking . 16 situation on Wilkie Way. My letter, which is included in your packet, shows the numbers I 17 gathered. Tonight at 6:45 there were 20 cars on a half mile of available street. I won't go into 18 all the yardages available but I too came up with about one-third of the potential capacity is now 19 being used. 20 21 Even ifpeople wanted to park on that street and walk to the Elk's for instance they would have a 22 really long walk. I really doubt that a lot of people are going to do that even when the Elk's is 23 completed or SummerHill is completed. 24 25 I just am here to urge you once again to please proceed with the rezoning to allow the City to 26 acquire the easement. This is the last chance as far as I can see to achieve real public access to a 27 public park. Even though Deodar Street has a public overlay it is still a private street, it is 200 28 yards down El Camino and this park will never be discovered by the Palo Alto public if it is left 29 this way. It is an attractive and a very functional park and I hope that you will make it possible 30 for the families in the surrounding neighborhoods to use it. I hope you will make it possible for 31 the residents of Arbor Real and SummerHill to access the neighborhoods around them. I hope 32 that you will vote to complete the rezoning to give us access rather than completing the isolation 33 of these developments from their surrounding communities. Thank you. 34 35 Chair Garber: Thank you. Stephanie Tramz followed by Sara Armstrong. 36 37 Ms. Stephanie Tramz, Palo Alto: Good evening. In the interest of full disclosure I have to state 38 that Samir Tuma and I practiced law together in San Francisco 20 years ago. I am sure he won't 39 be unduly swayed by my brilliant comments. 40 41 My concerns have been allayed. I didn't know the background. I just received a notice. I was 42 not able to come to the prior hearing. Whenever I see residential going to commercial I am 43 always concerned because in our area of South Palo Alto we are finally starting to gentrify and 44 upgrade. We still have lots of fly-by-night motels, forgive the expression, and a hotel. So I was 45 concerned that we were losing ground in that going forward attempt to become more residential, 46 more children oriented. Page 5 1 2 So now that I have heard the remarks I fully support this rezoning. The only comment that I 3 have with regard to the Staff Report would be the comment that returning the zoning to 4 commercial would be consistent with historic designations and I think that is precisely the point 5 from my point of view that we don't want to r~tum to historic commercial designation. In as 6 much as this apparently is going to be designated for non-vehicular bicycle and pedestrian I am 7 fully supportive. My question is is there a quid pro quo? Is some other piece going to .... is there 8 something being given up in exchange for this rezoning that might be of concern later? 9 10 Chair Garber: It is not the practice for us to actually respond to questions but you can work with 11 Staff. 12 13 Ms. Tramz: Dh all right. Well my comments are at an end. I am hoping that this is an out-and- 14 out rezoning for the purpose designated and that there is not an expectation on the part of 15 Dinah's Hotel or otherwise that later they are going to be able to come with some expanded use 16 application or whatever and seek this to be consideration. Enough said. Thank you very much. 17 18 Chair Garber: Thank you. Sara Armstrong followed by our last speaker Keith Reckdahl. 19 20 Ms. Sara Armstrong, Palo Alto: Thank you Commissioners. I am speaking on behalf of the 21 Charleston Meadows Association Board of Directors. Basically I am here tonight to reiterate the 22 comments that we made to you about a month ago to remind you that this is a sensitive issue for 23 our neighborhood. Not withstanding what you have heard and the very unscientific surveys that 24 have been conducted recently we remain concerned about overflow parking in our neighborhood. 25 We appreciate the efforts of our neighbors at Arbor Real for taking measures to alleviate the 26 overflow parking situation in the very current timeframe, but it remains to be seen whether those 27 efforts are temporary in nature or whether they are durable. So we are still concerned that in the 28 absence of mitigations opening up this access path will exacerbate overflow parking in the future 29 . because SummerHill, like many of the developments that have been approved at the same time, 30 have the same trifecta of parking flaws in that it has private streets with no on-street parking, 31 resident parking that relies entirely on garage parking with no apron, and that the City's guest 32 parking allocation formula has been demonstrated to be inadequate. 33 34 Weare also concerned that the enhanced zoning and corresponding higher density FAR for 35 Dinah's could be problematic for the neighborhood since it is being considered absent of any 36 information about the future plans for redevelopment or sale of that lot. At the same time we 37 recognize the benefits of access for our neighborhood and for other future residents of 38 SummerHill. So we would like to ask that as a matter of equity and in keeping with the 39 assurances of prior City Council's that our neighborhood be protected fronl overflow parking. 40 That we will support the access plan and this zone change and we feel like it is a win/win 41 situation if you put into place some mitigating strategies concurrent with the rezoning request. 42 That is as we have asked for a permit parking program be studied and looked at and put in place 43 on affected areas, that Dinah's be required to underwrite the funding for that since they are 44 getting a windfall profit with this rezoning, and that there are measures put in place so that 45 vehicular access, I appreciate the fact that it is written into the contract, but permanent physical Page 6 1 measures be put into place like planting, etc. so that no vehicular access will ever be allowed to 2 Wilkie. Thank you for your considerations. 3 4 Chair Garber: Before you leave Commissioner Keller has a question for you. Commissioner 5 Keller. 6 7 Conunissioner Keller: I believe that you are proposing that a permit program for overflow 8 parking be considered. I am wondering if you have thought about the nature of such a pennit 9 program and the hours of enforcement. 10 11 Ms. Armstrong: Thank you for that. What we have, and again I think that any parking program 12 would have to come with a pretty rigorous study on the part of the City. I understand that you 13 have a certain set of criteria that you look at and a survey of the residents to ensure that the 14 people, block-by-block or however the City decides to do it, are in support of that. As an 15 Association we believe that the main problem is nighttime parking not during the day. So that is 16 something I think that would be appropriate, evening hours. 17 18 Comnlissioner Keller: So you are suggesting a parking program enforced at night and whatever 19 mechanism there would be for enforcing that. 20 21 Ms. Armstrong: Yes, that is the suggestion. 22 23 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 24 25 Chair Garber: Our final speaker of the night is Keith Reckdahl. 26 27 Mr. Keith Reckdahl, Palo Alto: Hello. I am a resident of Charleston Meadows. I want to state 28 that I do oppose the bike path, and also oppose adding any density to Dinah's. While I like the 29 idea of bike paths, I bike to work myself, and I like the concept of bike paths the problem in this 30 case is that I have no faith that the City will force the property on Dinah's to have sufficient 31 parking. I don't think it will be self-contained parking and the density will be too high and not 32 enough parking spots that overflow parking will end up on Wilkie, and will contribute to more 33 parking problems. 34 35 Some of the other speakers did mention that right now parking is available on Wilkie. Right now 36 it is the best it has been in months. Recently Arbor Real went in with dumpsters and took 37 draconian measures and had people clean out their garages and converted many visitor parking 38 spots from visitor parking to resident parking spots. Even after all this effort they still have 39 overflow parking. In fact, freshly right after these measures they still overflow means that there 40 is a problem. It was worse before and almost certainly will get worse yet. In the rainy season 41 people will move items back from outside their house back into their garages and will have less 42 room to park and those cars are going to end up on Wilkie. This is new construction and as 43 people live in houses they accumulate more things, they will not be having two cars in their 44 garages as most people now in Arbor Real are doing. So because of that I do not want any more 45 density, don't want any more overflow parking. 46 Page 7 1 Also we have SummerHill and Dinah's. Right now there are one-third of the spots taken up 2 already on Wilkie and when SummerHill, those new people, move in and when the people from 3 Dinah's come in we could have 100 percent parking occupancy along Wilkie. That would not be 4 good for the neighbors and the people who require that for their own use. Thank you. 5 6 Chair Garber: Thank you very nluch. Commissioners, we are about 30 minutes into this item. 7 If we can I would like to try and get through our questions and comments and to a motion within 8 an hour. I have questions. I have lights from Commissioner Holman and then Keller and then 9 Fineberg. Commissioner Holman. 10 11 Commissioner Holman: If I might, I believe our new Commissioner was trying to and didn't 12 know how to. I'm sorry. I have a question for either Staff or for the first speaker. If I heard it 13 correctly that guests who are parking overnight at Arbor Real are being towed from Arbor Real. 14 Did I understand that correctly? 15 16 Mr. Williams: That is a statement that was made. We have not engaged in that dialogue with 17 Arbor Real. I don't think it was guests but I don't know I would have to ask the speaker. 18 19 Comnlissioner Holman: Perhaps Ms. Olmstead could answer the question at the microphone 20 please. 21 22 Ms. Olmstead: I have a letter that the Arbor Real parker gave me from the management that 23 describes this program. I fish it out and find it for you but the intent is that Arbor Real is hiring a 24 tow company. I have been told this by a couple of Arbor Real people. The parker I talked to 25 said that was the night that they were passing out messages saying don't park. 26 27 Commissioner Holman: Ms. Olmstead, I just want to make sure that I am clear on the action 28 here. They are towing overnight guests off of the Arbor Real site. Do I understand correctly? 29 30 Ms. Olmstead: If they are in a permit parking slot and do not have a permit they will be towed. 31 32 Comnlissioner Holman: I understand now. Thank you very much that is helpful. 33 34 A couple of questions for Staff. Understanding at least based on what was stated previously that 35 the easement agreement is not in our purview but I have a question that is pertinent to our 36 discussion this evening. The first page of that, B, it calls the property owner the grantor and it 37 says the grantor is requesting that zoning of the property be changed. Yet we were told last 38 meeting, as I understood it, that we could not impose conditions because it was not the property 39 owner who was requesting the zoning change but rather the City. 40 41 Mr. Williams: Yes, I think that is a good point. I think we should clean that up because that is 42 not the case. So we will get that changed that is a correction. 43 44 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Then again this cross-referencing between the easement 45 and the staffreport, and again I think pertinent to what we are doing tonight, if Attachment Dis 46 to become Exhibit A, and the easement on the top of page two of the easement agreement, the Page 8 1 landscape and improvenlents on that certain portion of property, reading on the third line of that 2 second page, as shown and described on Exhibit A, which is now currently in our Staff Report as 3 Attachment D. 4 5 Mr. Williams: Excuse me I believe the Attachment D was intended to be Exhibit A to the 6 Resolution to change the Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit A is actually in here. It is the plat that 7 has been the survey plat that has been drawn to accompany that and the legal description is 8 actually attached to the easement. 9 10 Ms. Melissa Tronquet. Senior Deputy City Attorney: Exhibit A to the easenlent is different from 11 Exhibit A to the Resolution. 12 13 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for that. Then you can just quickly help me with this. 14 Exhibit B then is part of the easement agreement where is that referenced in the easement 15 agreement? What I am trying to get at here is that it first appeared to me, and thank you for the 16 clarification Curtis, it first appeared to me that the easement agreement was applying to the 17 whole panhandle because I was referencing the wrong thing, because we have attachments and 18 exhibits and they are referencing different documents and it is not 100 percent clear to one 19 Commissioner at least. 20 21 Mr. Williams: I think we will have to look and see. Usually when you have an exhibit like this 22 it is Exhibit A and would include both the legal description and the map. I notice as you pointed 23 out that the plat that is attached actually says Exhibit B. So either we need to take the Exhibit B 24 off of that so that it is clear that Exhibit A is both or else we will say Exhibits A and B at the top 25 of page two there. Thank you for pointing that out. 26 27 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. So going to my questions that I had asked, and thank you 28 for providing the answers, what I am looking for is some assurance. We have already made 29 some assurances to neighbors that there would not be a pedestrian or bicycle or vehicular 30 connection to the neighborhood. I am not speaking for or against that. What I am trying to get at 31 is some assurance that if Staff changes, memories fail, records are disassociated one from 32 another, what is going to be referred to is the easement agreement. So what I am looking for is 33 some kind of written assurance that is binding. I think what the neighbors are asking for are 34 quite viable, not unreasonable, and why can we not or how can we put into writing attached to 35 these documents that oaks and redwoods will be considered as part of the Site and Design and 36 Landscape Design for the proposal, and that the City will entertain a parking permit study in 37 conjunction with the design. Not holding up the easement agreement. Why can we not put 38 something in place so that the neighborhood has some assurance? 39 40 Mr. Williams: I will look to the City Attorney to provide additional input, but my sense is there 41 is really nothing to attach that kind of condition to. If as a separate motion, and I will let Melissa 42 respond to whether as a separate motion you can direct that those things be considered in the 43 future, maybe you could do that. Right now there is a rezoning and a rezoning itself doesn't 44 have conditions on it. So there isn't a set of conditions to attach, number one. Number two, the 45 issue particularly about the design and plantings of the easement and all that we think are 46 addressed because you have added the D Overlay to this and it has the L for Landscape Overlay Page 9 1 as well, which means that a Conditional Use Pennit and a Site and Design Review pennit is 2 required. This means the Planning Commission and the Council are going to see when this 3 project comes through as a pathway project, and will see that and have an opportunity, and the 4 neighborhood will have an opportunity to review what is appropriate. By the same token, our 5 intent is to meet with the neighborhood earlier not later as far as the permit parking program goes 6 and try to address that issue and determine first of all whether they are even interested. I think 7 there is a lot to consider with permit parking programs so I don't think anyone should make an 8 assumption that there should be a permit parking program. That is something we would have to 9 explore with them. I think again on sort of a fail safe level we have two different checkpoints for 10 that. One is again when the pathway conles in for design. We should have at that point that 11 answer, and if we don't I would fully suspect that the neighbors would be here saying where is 12 that before you go ahead. That is a City project so the City fully has discretion to decide whether 13 to go ahead or not. Then secondly again the potential impacts from any redevelopment of 14 Dinah's would involve public notice and an opportunity for input. At that point in time again I 15 am sure that question would be asked if there were not already a program that had been explored . 16 and either implemented or not pursued. That again would be an opportunity to bring that 17 forward. Again, our intent is to go forward in advance of that and meet. I don't think that this 18 mechanism either the easement, especially the easement, or the rezoning provide a tool for 19 making those kinds of things requirements. 20 21 Commissioner Holman: Thank you for the explanation and also I wasn't trying to make them 22 requirements. I don't think necessarily the neighborhood is looking for a requirement. I am 23 looking for some kind of assurance that these questions and requests will be undertaken. That is 24 what I am after and understood they would not be a condition of the rezoning since it is the City 25 that is doing it but I think there should be perhaps available to the City some kind of attachment 26 to the rezoning and the statement of reasons why these could be included. 27 28 Two other quick questions are the park that is on the Arbor Real site is that privately owned or 29 publicly owned? 30 31 Ms. Lee: That is actually a publicly dedicated park. That is part of the SummerHill Redwood 32 Gate development not Arbor Real. 33 34 Commissioner Holman: I note on the map, Attachment D again, that shows public park that that 35 park is not indicated on that map. So it is a tangent question should that park be dedicated 36 parkland and that is a separate action. 37 38 The last question is because it is a public park then should there not be signage at the entrance to 39 that so people know the park exists? 40 41 Ms. Lee: If you refer to Attachment E that actually shows the park in relation to the pathway. 42 The drawing is up on the screen. Also, the agreement that the City has with Sun1illerHill Homes 43 is at the time the pathway is installed that they will work with the City in installing signage. 44 45 Commissioner Holman: I did note that the park is indicated but it is not indicated as a public 46 park. That was my only point on the nlap. Thank you. Page 10 1 2 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Fineberg. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So my first question is actually a comment. If you look with 5 a little bit of sleuthing if you will and looked at the easement and if you notice the second page 6 of it, Exhibit A, which is the plat map, the region for which the easement is granted is trapezoidal 7 and by doing the math where it says it is 5,021 square feet diving that into 130 you wind up that 8 the width of this parcel on a perpendicular basis is 38.62 feet or 38 feet, seven and one-half 9 inches. So it is not quite 40 feet wide in the perpendicular direction. 10 11 I am wondering where it is stated that there would be no easement to this access easement from 12 the rest of the Dinah's parcel. Does it state that and should that be part of the easement saying 13 that there is no access from Dinah's? 14 15 Mr. Williams: There is nothing here that says there is no access from Dinah's. What happens in 16 the easement we would control but access up to the point of the easement Dinah's still could 17 have access there today, they could have access all the way through to Wilkie Way. 18 19 Comnlissioner Keller: Well, considering that presents a problem for overflow parking it might 20 be useful to add a condition to the extent that any access to the easement from the rest of Dinah's 21 property is with permission of the City only. 22 23 Mr. Williams: We are not going to change -the easement is not before you tonight. So this is 24 what you have other than technical corrections that we will make to it the negotiation for the 25 easement is not in your purview. 26 27 Commissioner Keller: But we do have access to that when the Site and Design Review happens 28 for the beige portion of the rest of the rezoned property that is not part of the easement. 29 30 Mr. Williams: Correct. You could design it in a way that doesn't make that practical to make 31 that connection. 32 33 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. The second question is in a letter in this packet we 34 were given tonight there is a letter from a Mr. Brian dated Tuesday, at 12:38, it is the second 35 letter in the packet that contains the easement. It states here, four lines from the bottom in the 36 paragraph labeled one, note that this implies that the limited parking that the City allowed in the 37 Arbor Real development has not created any significant parking problenl on Wilkie Way and 38 nearby streets, etc. My question is, and I realize this is a little far a field, but I know the City has 39 minimum requirements for parking. Does the City have maximum allowances for how much 40 parking can be in a development? 41 42 Mr. Williams: No we don't. I think that is primarily a design issue. If you were getting to a 43 point where you were covering an excessive amount of the site with parking lot and it was twice 44 as much parking as you need then there may be design issues. I think I have seen ARB on a few 45 occasions actually ask to cut back parking when it was over the amount required, well over the Page 11 1 amount required, to cut it back somewhat where it seemed to be having a lot of deleterious visual 2 effects. But there is not a maximum in the code. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: So if Arbor Real had come to the ARB or wherever and said well, we 5 think for our development instead of having X number of parking spaces because of being four 6 or five bedroom or however many bedroom units we think that more parking spaces would be 7 needed and therefore we want to provide extra parking spaces over the minimum required that 8 could have occurred? 9 10 Mr. Williams: Yes. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. Also one last question about parking just to make this 13 clear. Is there any rule about parking that says that independent of the minimum amount of 14 parking that a project has to be self-parked? In other words, has to park its usage. It is sort of 15 like the basic speed law when you are driving it says you have to obey the speed limit but you 16 also have to go whatever speed is safe for that road. Is there a generic statement to the effect of 17 that whatever uses there are on a property it has to be self-parked or is there no such rule? 18 19 Mr. Williams: The basic rule is that any project has for the uses that are provided must provide 20 parking that complies with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. 21 22 Commissioner Keller: If the usage for that parcel exceeds the amount of parking required for 23 that by the minimum of the ordinance that it wouldn't have to have the extra parking even if it 24 was needed to self-park? 25 26 Chair Garber: Commissioner may I just ask where you are going and maybe we can get to your 27 point? 28 29 Commissioner Keller: Yes, my point about this is in some sense first of all I think that in some 30 sense there was some statement that I made earlier in the previous hearing to the extent that 31 Arbor Real may be under-parked partly that is the City's rules, but I am also trying to understand 32 the extent to which our Zoning Ordinance has this sort of basic rule or whether the Zoning 33 Ordinance simply says you have to put this minimun1 number based on some calculation. That 34 affects for example what happens at Dinah's in terms of our zoning and whether that is 35 sufficiently parked, which affects the nature of the potential overflow parking from that. 36 37 Chair Garber: Thank you. Anything else? 38 39 Commissioner Keller: I don't know if I got an answer to that question. 40 41 Mr. Williams: I think the answer is still that the code prescribes the minimum and more can be 42 provided. 43 44 Chair Garber: Let me interrupt just to see if I am getting it. What you are trying to do is you are 45 trying to get some potentially base causes for some of the parking issues that are before us not 46 specifically related to this item. Page 12 1 2 Commissioner Keller: Well, the issues could conle up when Dinah's is redeveloped, and 3 therefore what I am trying to understand is the issue whether the minimum parking is only what 4 is specified by code or if a usage calculation says that more parking is needed than code requires 5 whether the City can require that amount of parking or is it limited to the City ordinance. 6 7 Chair Garber: I think I am understanding you. Let me see if I can focus you on this itenl and 8 when the opportunity arises once that Dinah's or whomever comes and looks to create a project 9 then we can work specifically on what those issues are. The larger issues although of interest to 10 the Commission I think we should agendize or take up in a separate topic. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: That is fine I am done with that particular question, but I think it is 13 interesting to understand that and certainly we did not prohibit Arbor Real fronl having more 14 parking than the minimum. 15 16 Just an editorial comment, on Attachment C in the main Staff Report there is an RM-15 listed on 17 the logical south of the easement. The unlabeled portion, which is presumably also RM-15, 18 should also be labeled to make clear that that is indeed changed as well because it is bisected by 19 the parcel. 20 21 Since it came up that the park within the development, the park that is on the screen and that is 22 within the SummerHill development, should we rezone that as PF because parks are generally 23 zoned as PF, Public Facilities? I realize that is not exactly before us. 24 25 Mr. Williams: Yes, it is not and I don't think it is necessary to. We could consider that at a 26 future date because there may be some other parks around and maybe look at that 27 comprehensively citywide if there is a need to update our PF zoning. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: One advantage of doing that is it would basically make it clear on a 30 zoning map that there is a park there for anybody who looked at that. That would be part of the 31 Comprehensive Plan so it would be more likely to show up if that zoning were redone. Thank 32 you. 33 34 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg and then Martinez. 35 36 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to start with just a general comment that the reason we are 37 talking about this tonight I think just shines a real bright light to the need for the City to do an 38 analysis and possibly an update of the parking requirements for nlultifamily residential 39 developments. Without that kind of analysis, without knowing whether the citizens are claiming 40 it is under-parked, or the citizens are claiming it is over-parked, without the City's and Staff or 41 Staff consultants conducting that analysis we don't know whether overflow parking is going to 42 be an issue. So frankly I am blind to the facts when making the decision and I am concenled 43 because we are in one way trying to protect the residents of the adj acent single family 44 neighborhood but then in another way not constrain gaining access for pedestrians. I don't think 45 we are necessarily taking the steps in the right order. So this to me just underscores the need to Page 13 1 conduct an analysis so if the requirements are not adequate we don't keep making the same 2 mistakes. 3 4 To some specifics, on Attachment B in the main Staff Report, page one. I appreciate receiving 5 the easement document today/tonight. In section B where it says the Planning and 6 Transportation Commission has reviewed the facts presented at the public hearing, including 7 public testimony and reports and recommendations from the Director of Planning. The easement 8 report to me goes to the facts of the case because without that it is the best of intentions and 9 wishes. So while I understand the easement is not in our purview it basically states many of the 10 facts that we base consistency with Comprehensive Plan and many of the other things that we are 11 being asked to decide tonight. 12 13 Going down to Section 2 on that same page, the first page of the ordinance, it says the Council 14 finds that the public interest, health, and .... so these are the findings that City Council is required 15 to determine. It says, "The City Council finds that the public interest, health, and welfare require 16 an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in Section 3." Focus on 17 that word 'require.' My question for City Staff is where does that statement of findings come 18 from? Then what is the threshold for the determination of require? 19 20 Ms. Tronguet: It is a zoning decision so it actually probably could be worded a little bit better 21 than 'require' and we will work on it before it goes to Council. The standard for making zoning 22 decisions is whether the change that you are making is reasonably related to the public health, 23 safety, and welfare. So that is probably a better way to think about it than requires, and whether 24 it furthers the public health, safety, and welfare. So that is probably where the required came 25 from. Does that make sense? 26 27 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes it does, and I appreciate that because to be quite frank I don't think 28 this zoning change is not something that is required for public safety. Does it increase the public 29 benefit of access of park? If one thinks of it as an improvement I can get there. I don't think I 30 can get to required. 31 32 Ms. Tronguet: When you make zoning decisions you are always sort of weighing competing 33 interests and so ultimately the determination that you make you just have to make a finding that 34 you think what you are doing furthers the public health, safety, and welfare. 35 36 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. On the signature page, page 5 of the easement a quick 37 question. I don't know if it is just a placeholder or if it has some meaning that has escaped me, 38 on the Easement Agreement, fifth page, on the left hand column it says Approved as to Form, 39 Senior Assistant City Attorney, electric. What is the electric? 40 41 Ms. Tronquet: A typo to me. 42 43 Conunissioner Fineberg: Okay. Thank you I wasn't sure if I missed something. Has the City 44 Staff or any consultants conducted any parking analysis after any of our multifamily homes have 45 been built? 46 Page 14 1 Mr. Williams: We have not. We would like to do that. We have been waiting for them to be 2 more fully completed before we do that. I think it is problematic to do that while there is still 3 construction of some homes and that kind of thing going on. So we are at that point with Arbor 4 Real and would like to see SummerHill get finished too and then probably go in and do a full 5 parking study. As we move into discussing permit parking one of the first steps in that analysis 6 is for us to actually do a parking analysis of different segments of the streets in the area, where 7 the cars are coming from, and that kind of thing. So that would be part of that process as well. 8 9 Commissioner Fineberg: Great. I am glad to hear that and would encourage Staff to consider 10 looking at the projects that are over by Fabian. I believe it is in the same situation where when 11 everything in that corridor comes online we are already seeing some changes and it is unknown 12 what is going to happen when everything is fully completed. So thank you. 13 14 One of the members of the public had commented that Arbor Real has converted some of its 15 visitor parking into residential parking. One, is that permitted by code? Two, is there any 16 knowledge of whether that has happened or not? 17 18 Mr. Williams: What I have understood from the written materials that were submitted and to 19 some extent from the comments is that they have gone in and required people to clean out the 20 garages who were not using their garages first of all. Then secondly they have instituted this 21 measure that looks like it is basically preventing people from using the guest parking spaces 22 illegally. So the residents should not be using the guest parking spaces. Those need to be left 23 available for the guests not for the residents themselves. They are not just extra spaces for 24 residents. So that seems to be what they are focused. 25 26 Again, we have not had that specific discussion but we don't think anything has been done that 27 changes the allocation of parking spaces or the number of parking spaces available out there. It 28 is just more of an enforcement mechanism that they are working on to be sure that the spaces and 29 garages remain available and the guest spaces remain available for guests. 30 31 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, because I believe I heard a member of the public say they have 32 reduced the guest parking and converted those to residential. That would be a cause for concern 33 if that has happened. 34 35 So we have talked about the fact that we can't condition the Zoning Ordinance but the easement 36 has conditions in it. I may not say this correctly but it is my understanding the easement can't be 37 perfected if for instance they appeal the zoning decision, and there are some other conditions that 38 the contract is voided unless certain things happen. Is it possible to have these suggested 39 conditions, the things like the consideration of redwoods, or the consideration of closing access 40 to Dinah's, consideration not requirements. Could those conditions be included as conditions on 41 the grantee within the easement document? 42 43 Ms. Tronquet: The purpose of the easement is really to govern the use and access of the 44 easement property. So the sorts of details of how the City as the grantee uses the easement really 45 are not appropriate for the easement. 46 Page 15 1 Then I just sort of want to take you back to focus on the zoning decision itself rather than the 2 tenns of the easement. So I think: as Curtis mentioned before really the mechanism that we put 3 in place to ask that question is the Landscape and Site and Design overlays. That will be a public 4 process and those issues will be fully considered and vetted through that process and that is the 5 reason why we placed those overlays on this zone change. 6 7 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, that's it. Thank: you. 8 9 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez, then Lippert, and then Tuma. 10 11 Commissioner Martinez: I have a question for the City Attorney. I understand, as you just said, 12 that the easement is not really part of our purview tonight but I wanted to ask, and I hope since I 13 am new you will give me some slack, I wanted to ask if there were another fonn of getting the 14 bicycle-pedestrian access without creating an easement? I know there is the expediency of it but 15 was there another way to do it? 16 17 Mr. Williams: The other way to do it was to purchase it and we did look at the cost of that. 18 Without disclosing the appraisal I would say it is certainly prohibitive given the City's financial 19 situation. 20 21 Commissioner Martinez: I understand that. 22 23 Mr. Williams: That was really the only other mechanism left given that all these other properties 24 had already been subdivided up to this property down Wilkie Way. So there were no other 25 avenues to require it in future developments there. 26 27 Commissioner Martinez: Could it have not also been a condition of approval of the development 28 of the Dinah's property? 29 30 Mr. Williams: It could be left to that however, the dilemma that we were in, and the reason the 31 Council directed us to pursue this in a more timely way was because the SummerHill property 32 there with the park that proposed path that comes out and connects to this easement is dedicated 33 as an easement there on the condition that the City obtain an easement by, it was March of this 34 year and it is now September of this year. Ifwe don't then that easement goes away. 35 36 Now there is another easement about two-thirds of the way down the property towards EI 37 Camino that still could connect but it is not very convenient to getting to the park from there. So 38 this had a timeframe on it. The SummerHill easement connection to the park right there that you 39 see, that thin green strip, is what really was compelling as far as trying to do something in this 40 timeframe. Otherwise we could wait until Dinah's redeveloped and see. We also need to have a 41 legal nexus, which the attorney could speak to, whether that would exist or not with the Dinah's 42 redevelopment to be able to require it. It may not, in which case we couldn't even make that 43 requirement upon the redevelopment. 44 Page 16 1 Commissioner Martinez: I am concerned, not concerned, I just observed that in doing it this way 2 we are committed to the design, construction, maintenance costs of the easement forever. 3 Basically that is true. Do we have an idea of what those costs are? 4 5 Mr. Williams: I don't believe in talking to our Transportation Staff that the costs of construction 6 are really extensive. It is the maintenance, I just don't know what the maintenance would be, but 7 I would think that the construction cost is probably less than $50,000 nlaybe considerably less 8 than that. It depends also on the nature of how much we put into it and what kind of materials 9 we use. Do we go for the Cadillac 130 foot long pathway or do we put decomposed granite and 10 a few strategically placed trees? 11 12 Commissioner Martinez: I appreciate that. Does Dinah's have permission to also nlake use of 13 the easement? For example in grading, grading is grading, drainage goes wherever the water 14 needs to go. Do they have the ability to nln utilities through that to allow surface drainage 15 through our sewer systems? Is that available to them as well? 16 17 Mr. Williams: The Attorney would have to say whether there is a utility. There may be lines 18 subsurface connections that I would think might be allowed within that but that wouldn't conflict 19 with the use of the easement. I don't think grading and construction within it that would in any 20 way impede the landscape and pathway use of the property would be allowable. 21 22 Ms. Tronguet: They shouldn't be doing anything that interferes with our use of that easement. 23 So to the extent that something like that barred public access that would be a problem, but I don't 24 know the details of the utilities there. .so beyond that I really can't speak to it. 25 26 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. I echo Commissioner Holman's concern about making sure it is 27 clear that there is no vehicular access. When we say that there is going to be emergency vehicle 28 access to me that means a 20-foot wide access way for a fire truck. Do we have to include that 29 as a possibility or a certainty to the project? Cannot Dinah's be responsible for getting 30 emergency vehicles in and out of their property? 31 32 Mr. Williams: I think we could potentially revisit that at the time there is a redevelopment on the 33 Dinah's site. At this point I think we want to preserve that potential. I don't think our fire 34 department would require 20 feet clearance. I think they would probably be able to use ten to 14 35 feet and I am anticipating the pathway is going to be probably ten feet wide. But it is not 36 absolutely necessary that we would have to say emergency vehicle use is permitted but I don't 37 think we want to preclude that at this point either. I think it is useful. 38 39 We don't have that. We do have a couple of other points back along Wilkie Way where there 40 have been emergency vehicle access provided through some other developments but it is 41 circuitous to get up to or it would be to get to the Dinah's property. So it is probably worthwhile 42 to have something from Wilkie in that direction as well. 43 44 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, I think if we could sort of steer it so we are discouraging that use 45 of the pathway I think that would support our effort to try to make sure it is not looking like a Page 17 1 roadway for motorcycles and cars and others that want to take a shortcut. So I would encourage 2 that in the planning of the pathway. 3 4 My last comment is I really want to acknowledge public speakers for their community- 5 mindedness of the importance of making the park accessible to SummerHill and to the rest of the 6 community. Ijust want to say as a person who lived with residential parking permits it is more 7 of a hardship on residents than on others coming to park there. Even though I had plenty of off 8 street parking there were times when I was only going to be in the house for a minute, came 9 back, ticket. When I had out of town guests, ticket. When my teenagers started to drive, ticket. 10 It really becomes, since you feel like you have adequate parking and you are trying to keep 11 others out it actually really comes back to haunt you in so many ways. If we can find another 12 measure to make sure that parking on the street is avail~ble to you I would really look for that 13 effort. Thank you. 1'4 15 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert, Tuma, Holman. 16 17 Commissioner Lippert: In the interest of moving us along I really just have a couple of quick 18 questions and then I will make a couple of comments. On the draft Easement Agreement I have 19 a question on the second page. Number three, no vehicular use, would that prohibit Public 20 Works and maintenance and utility trucks from accessing that site also? Or is that just an 21 oversight and we can include that language so that Public Works can do their maintenance? 22 23 Ms. Tronguet: We can look into it. 24 25 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then with regard to the permit parking issue, Staff is not 26 recommending having permit parking in place by the time the easement or the rezone goes into 27 place it is just merely a study would be done for the permit parking would be done at that time. 28 29 Mr. Williams: We don't anticipate the study would be done by the time the easement or the 30 rezoning goes to Council, which is a month from now. It is going to take awhile. What we want 31 to be sure of is that that analysis and everything is done before go out and build a pathway 32 connection. 33 34 Commissioner Lippert: So an analysis would be done. 35 36 Mr. Williams: Which frankly is not going to happen in the next few months. We just budget- 37 wise need to look at it and so it is going to be down the road a ways before we actually get to 38 funding the design of a pathway, and then coming through the public process, and reviewing 39 that, so there is some time to work on that. 40 41 Commissioner Lippert: So there is no connection at the current time between having the 42 functioning easement and permit parking? 43 44 Mr. Williams: Right. 45 Page 18 1 Commissioner Lippert: With that I would like to make a couple of really quick comments. First 2 of all I want to thank the members of the public that gave their testimony today. I think we 3 really appreciate it and particularly would like to thank Jean Olmstead for her diligence in tenns 4 of her parking count. I bicycle through that neighborhood frequently on weekends. In fact I cut 5 down Edlee and Wilkie Way towards Arastradero Creek to cut across to get to Los Altos and 6 Foothill Expressway. Driving down that street on a Sunday morning you can actually shoot a 7 cannon down that street and not hit anything. That is how wide it is and how much parking there 8 is on that street. What I would really hate to see happen is a bad decision make a series of 9 cascading other bad decisions. I think as Commissioner Martinez had spoken parking pennits in 10 some ways become more of a hardship on the residents along that street or a neighborhood than 11 it does upon the people that are visiting that neighborhood. I think back to studying urban design 12 and reading Jane Jacobs and Making Cities Livable. Parking is a very important component of 13 the life and fabric ofa city in tenns of people having an investment on the street. Ifpeople are 14 not parking on the street they are not watching the street and they are not talking about having 15 safe streets. Parking goes in hand-in-glove with the idea or the notion of having activity. We do 16 have in place a series of ordinances already that number one, we don't have people sleeping in 17 cars. The police can take action if there is a neighbor complaining about that. Number two, you 18 are not supposed to be parking Winnebago's or trucks overnight on streets. They are supposed 19 to be either in driveways or in other areas. Number three, a neighbor can call if a car has been 20 left abandoned for up to three days and that can be tagged and towed at the owner's expense. 21 What I see here is that a mistake or an oversight on the part of Staff or another Board might have 22 made with regard to Arbor Real and enclosed garages, and reducing parking by having those 23 spaces used as storage spaces is potentially impacting the adjacent street. However, it sounds 24 like Arbor Real is beginning to make movement in the direction of correcting that problem 25 thereby bringing the parking back on their site again. I would hate to see us make a rash decision 26 or make a decision that would tie our hands in tenns of pennit parking in a neighborhood that 27 would then impact that neighborhood in a way that would be really detrimental to undennining 28 the urban fabric and neighborhood character. 29 30 With that the merits of the easement I think are quite important. We have in place in the 31 Comprehensive Plan a commitment to provide neighborhood parks for every 5,000 units of 32 housing. The proposed park that and easement that is there we are going to lose that opportunity 33 to have a connection to the adjacent neighborhood on Wilkie Way if we don't take action and 34 decide to rezone that little piece of property by putting in that connection. That little 35 neighborhood is going to miss the opportunity to have a neighborhood park and connection. So 36 again what I am saying here is I think that a series of perhaps one bad mistake is beginning to 37 cascade into another series of other potentially bad judgnlents. 38 39 So those are basically my comments. I am in support of the rezone. I think it is a great 40 opportunity here and if we don't act on it soon it will be an opportunity lost. 41 42 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma and then Holman. 43 44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Just one quick question for Staff. Could you just reiterate very clearly what 45 the consequence of not doing this by September is? 46 Page 19 1 Mr. Williams: The consequence is that the easement connection between the park and this strip 2 of land is lost. It won't be consummated and recorded by SummerHill Homes. 3 4 MOTION 5 6 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thank you. With that I would like to move the Staff recommendation. 7 8 SECOND 9 10 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that. 11 12 Chair Garber: Would the maker of the motion like to speak to their motion? ,13 14 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, a couple of brief comments. First, I think that the concerns of the 15 neighborhood are certainly legitimate and need to be addressed, but I am also very comfortable 16 that a project will come back to us. So I am quite confident that this Commission as well as the 1 7 public through the process will make sure that the concerns that the public has had get addressed. 18 What the outcomes of those will be we don't know yet but I am confident that through that 19 process we will make sure that those concerns are addressed. 20 21 Further, I am able to find that the public interest, health, and welfare will be bettered by an 22 amendment to the Zoning Map and that such changes would be in accordance with the purpose 23 and intent of the zoning title and Comprehensive Plan. Also, that the Comprehensive Plan 24 Amendment will benefit the public interest, health, safety, and welfare of Palo Alto and the 25 surrounding region in that the changes will bring consistency to the land use designation of the 26 area, and will facilitate the developnlent of a better buffer and transition between surrounding 27 land uses. Those are my reasons for making the motion. 28 29 Chair Garber: Thank you. Would the seconder like to speak to their second? 30 31 Commissioner Lippert: I concur with Vice-Chair Tuma's comments. I would just like to add to 32 that with regard to the issue of the trees we do have an Architectural Review Board, they do look 33 at landscaping issues, and it will come back to us for Site and Design issues. So I think we are 34 pretty well covered with regard to those aspects. I think the overlay D designation works more 35 than adequately in terms of covering the last items including any closures or impediments we 36 would want to place. 37 38 Chair Garber: Discussion. I have lights from Commissioners Holman, Fineberg, and Keller. 39 40 Commissioner Holman: I have one question for City Staff still. Top of page two, the Easement 41 Agreement, and this goes to are we going to get what we say we are going to get? It starts on the 42 previous line, public access easement subject to Section 2 below, etc. Top of page two it says, 43 collectively the grantee parties a nonexclusive easement. So if it is nonexclusive who else has 44 right to use this easement? 45 Page 20 1 Ms. Tronquet: It is an easement for the public so anyone will be able to use it. The intention of 2 the City is to make a public path. 3 4 Commissioner Holman: Well, but it is the public's discretion, excuse me it is the grantee's 5 discretion. 6 7 Ms. Tronquet: Since the terms of the easement itself are not before you I will take note of that 8 and we will review it. 9 10 Commissioner Holman: It is very pertinent to how I am going to vote frankly because if what 11 we are looking at is if the public is going to get a public easement and as our new Commissioner 12 pointed out if it is used also for emergency vehicular access then if emergency vehicles can use it 13 and it is a nonexclusive easement, who else has right to use that property for what purposes? 14 Then are we going to get what we say we are going to get? It goes to the heart of the matter. It 15 is not a matter of what the easement language is it goes to the heart of the purpose of our 16 rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan change. 17 18 Ms. Tronquet: No one is going to be able to do anything that interferes with the rights that are 19 set forth in this easement for the City. If they do we will be able to enforce the rights that are in 20 this easement. 21 22 Commissioner Holman: So you can point me somewhere in the easement agreement, because I 23 do note that in the Easement Agreement it says if I read it correctly and quickly, that the use of 24 the easement would not interfere with the enjoyment of the property by the owners of Dinah's 25 property. So I did not run across any language that said that the use of the Dinah's property 26 would not interfere with the public's right of enjoyment of the easement. If you can point me 27 somewhere that corrects that I am very, very happy to hear it. 28 29 Ms. Tronguet: I am not clear on what the question is. 30 31 Chair Garber: May I? It may be helpful to focus the issue if maybe there is an example of how 32 you are thinking this may be taken advantage of. 33 34 Commissioner Holman: So if it is a nonexclusive easement then is there anything that the City 35 could do to preclude the emergency access to Dinah's through this easement, for instance? 36 37 Ms. Tronguet: Well, we said we would look at the emergency access issue. I didn't negotiate 38 this. I imagine there was a reason that they put emergency vehicle access. I think its stated 39 under the agreement pretty clearly which are to build and maintain a public walkway, 40 landscaping and related improvements, and to provide members of the public pedestrian and/or 41 bicycle access to, from, over, along, and across the easement property. So those are the rights 42 that the City is getting and this easement gives the City. 43 44 Mr. Williams: It is granting rights in this easement to the grantee. It is not for somebody else to 45 be able to use this. The nonexclusive as Melissa said is to assure that we can't keep someone Page 21 1 else from being able to use these for these purposes. So I sort of understand where you are 2 coming from but I think this language covers all that and it is just legal jargon to some extent. 3 4 Commissioner Holman: Well, if I could suggest that perhaps the language might be clarified a 5 little bit for Council before it goes to Council. I will make a couple of conmlents and then I will 6 ask for a couple of amendments if I could. 7 8 I came here thinkingl I would'support this and I still am going to support it but I have to say I am 9 not enthusiastic. The reason is because, and I empathize with Staff because I think Staffis in a 10 very, very difficult negotiating position with this. We are giving up an awful lot to get 11 something that again, I am not 100 percent comfortable that we are going to get what the purpose 12 IS. 13 14 So the couple of amendments that I would like are to be noted I guess this doesn't have to an 15 amendment to the motion but just to make sure that it is noted that the changes within the 16 easement agreement per previous having to do with Exhibit A, those changes will be made, and 17 that the grantor language will be changed on the first page of the Easement Agreement. 18 19 Also ask of the maker of the motion that we use the alternate language for the life, health, safety 20 language, the alternate language that was provided as a response to questions. 21 22 Vice-Chair Tuma: I did. I actually did use the alternate language when I made the motion. 23 24 Commissioner Holman: I didn't understand that. I am sorry. Thank you very much. 25 26 Also that Staff consider some way of, and if maker would accept this, the Staff look at making 27 some kind of memo that could be attached to this agreement so that the addressing of redwoods, 28 oaks, and the parking permit system could happen with this. Understand that it can't be a part of 29 this document but a memo attached to it. The reason is because the reasons I stated previously 30 and I can just see this coming to the ARB, yes they are going to do their job, Planning 31 Commission is going to do their job, and also the public is going to have to birddog it yet again 32 to see that they are getting what they are told they are going to get. If maker would consider that. 33 34 Ms. Tronguet: Just to clarify. The comments on the easement can't be part of the motion 35 because the easement is not on the agenda. But we will certainly take note. I am not sure if I 36 understood you. 37 38 Commissioner Holman: I wasn't trying to make those as a part of the motion just a clarification 39 that those were being addressed by Staff. Thank you. 40 41 Vice-Chair Tuma: Mr. Planning Director do you have a comment on that? 42 43 Mr. Williams: I am not quite sure, I think the best we can do is note in the record that these 44 things are intended. I don't know what you attach a letter to. It can't be to the easement. A 45 letter attached to the zoning is as you pointed out you are not going back and looking at the 46 zoning amendment itself. You have the zoning, the controls in place are the D and L overlays Page 22 1 that require a Conditional Use Permit and Site and Design Review when these things come 2 through. If the Commission chooses to recommend that we could try to work something up but I 3 think we would recommend to Council that they not include that. 4 5 Chair Garber: Commissioner, a suggestion. If I am understanding you correctly what you are 6 recognizing is that there is no way to utilize the actions that are before us to tie those particular 7 issues to. We can't make that connection. To talk about it in a slightly different way what you 8 are really wanting to do is create a memo to file so we don't forget this stuff. 9 10 Commissioner Holn1an: Exactly, and especially in this case because we have already been 11 through this once with these same neighbors saying that this wouldn't happen and now it is 12 happening. I just think if we could fmd a way to do it, and I am not saying how it should be 13 done. 14 15 Chair Garber: So just as perhaps an unusual way of doing this but is it imaginable that we could 16 create a Colleague's Memo that is essentially to ourselves on this topic? It is sort of circular. 17 18 Mr. Williams: I don't see why can't provide as part of the record in the minutes that this is what 19 you are directing that these things be addressed as part of the project. 20 21 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman. 22 23 Commissioner Holman: That is very satisfactory. 24 25 Chair Garber: Okay. 26 27. Commissioner Holman: Does the maker accept that? 28 29 Chair Garber: Was there an action there or just simply an acknowledgement that the let me ask 30 you, Commissioner Holman, what do you think the action is there relative to the inclusion of the 31 minutes? 32 33 Commissioner Holman: Well there is some agreement among Commissioners that that action 34 take place. 35 36 Chair Garber: Let's do this, straw poll? 37 38 Vice-Chair Tuma: I am amenable let's just amend the motion. 39 40 Chair Garber: Okay, we will leave it as an amendment. The seconder? 41 42 Commissioner Lippert: Sure I will go along with it. 43 44 Chair Garber: Okay. Anything else? Commissioner Fineberg and then Keller. I am going to 45 remind everybody that we are at our hour and one-half mark so let's move forward. 46 Page 23 1 Commissioner Fineberg: In my mind this project is very right and very wrong, more so than I 2 think anything else we have deliberated on. Our Comprehensive Plan is very clear that we value 3 walkable neighborhoods, we value parkland for our residents, and we value comfortable good 4 spaces for people to live in. Having a landlocked park in a walled community is not consistent 5 with our Comprehensive Plan. What is before us tonight is kind of the last chance to fix it in a 6 good way. That is the right part about this proposal. 7 8 The wrong part is that what we are doing is burdening the taxpayers with a public park on an 9 easement that will have to be maintained by the City. We are shifting the impacts of parking 10 potentially to the single family residents that were promised protections. None of that would 11 have been necessary if the original projects had been planned correctly and planned with the 12 values implemented that we have in our Comprehensive Plan. So to fix it we do what is on the 13 proposed action tonight. 14 15 As far as Commissioner Holman's comments about sort of those additional assurances to the 16 residents, the protections, or the kind of memory of what our intentions are I absolutely agree 17 with the value in doing that. I am not sure I am clear right now whether we as a body have 18 determined what those intentions are. I am hearing that some of us want some protected trees, 19 that some of us want restrictions or minimization of access for emergency vehicles. I am hearing 20 that some of us want restrictions from the Dinah property so that it doesn't become a channel for 21 offsite parking from the Elk's. That might possibly be a fence when there is a project before us. 22 Were there other things? The list of Commissioner Holman's suggestions, we have had different 23 people throwing up different ideas through the night. So can we have one list so it is in one 24 place? 25 26 Ms. Tronquet: That will be something you will be able to consider when the actual design of the 27 path comes back to you. 28 29 Conlffiissioner Fineberg: Okay. My concern with that is what happens if that comes back to the 30 Commission in five years, in ten years, or in 20 years? I know that CUPs get lost. I know that 31 minutes get lost. If it is 20 or 25 years from now there are still going to be people in those single 32 family homes that don't want overflow parking. So to me it is just urgent that there be some 33 organizational memory that it remains in a place that people can find it. So can we have a . 34 summary of what those item all were and rather than it being my suggestion, your suggestion, if 35 we can maybe straw poll so it is clear that we agree? 36 37 Commissioner Holman: Chair Garber if I might, and I am sorry to inteIj ect. The only intention 38 that I had was that it carried forward was the consideration of oaks and redwoods per the 39 neighbors' specific request. The consideration of redwoods and oaks such as are described in the 40 request and the consideration and discussion with the neighbors about a permit parking system. 41 Those are the only two things that I had intended to be included in that memo. 42 43 Vice-Chair Tuma: That is what I understood was being added to the motion as well. 44 45 Commissioner Lippert: That is what I understood that it was purely a list to tickle the memories 46 of people. Page 24 1 2 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so several people talked about consideration of restricting access 3 from Dinah's basically building across to the property line. Would we want to add that or no? 4 5 Chair Garber: Commissioners? I think we can't touch that because it is not part of the nexus of 6 the items that are in front of us. Is that correct? However, I think to the Commissioner's point 7 this would be on the memory list of things that would be captured as part of the minutes of this 8 project that would then be a part of an item that would come to us that would look to make 9 modifications to the Dinah property, etc. 10 11 Mr. Williams: My understanding is that the highlight of, and the minutes of issues the 12 Commission highlighted were as Commissioner Holman just stated those two items. I think 13 there were several other things that were brought up, they are in the minutes of the meeting, but 14 what we will do for the Council purposes is highlight as subsequent to the motion that these 15 couple of issues were particularly identified as issues to be considered at the time design and 16 parking programs come forward. 17 18 Chair Garber: Commissioner is that? 19 20 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, I am fine with that but I am not sure that I understand why 21 sonlething like a parking program offsite would be in our purview but the intention of restricting 22 access or a fence wouldn't be. So we don't have to pick nits on that and I am fine if that is the 23 consensus of the group I am comfortable with that. 24 25 So I will be supporting the motion in particular with the changes to the wording of the findings 26 that were stated by Conlffiissioner Tuma. Thank you. 27 28 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 29 30 Commissioner Keller: So most parks in Palo Alto have limited hours of access. Would the City 31 of Palo Alto be able to limit access to the easenlent to the access when the park is open? 32 33 Ms. Tronguet: I think so but that will probably be something that is determined as part of the 34 Conditional Use Permit process when the landscape and Site and Design is considered. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I assume that the start of paragraph one of the agreement 37 which basically refers to invitees that those invitees are effectively members of the public that 38 are referenced in I and II down further? Thank you. 39 40 I have a question about number five. The last sentence in number five basically says if repairs or 41 special maintenance to the property become necessary as a result of the use of the easement 42 property or grantees improvements thereto, as grantor may determine in its reasonable discretion 43 grantee shall reimburse grantor for all the reasonable costs and expenses associated with 44 performing such work with respect to the property. I would encourage you to tighten up that 45 language that essentially doesn't allow, basically the grantee could decide that they want better Page 25 1 pavement or whatever because they don't like the way it is and the City could be stuck paying 2 for it. So I would be very cautious about that language. 3 4 Ms. Tronquet: It is fairly standard language actually but we will take it under advisement. 5 6 Commissioner Keller: In addition of the important issues of the nonexclusive easement in item 7 one is that because it is nonexclusive Dinah's retains access to the easement and therefore based 8 on the wording of the easement we are essentially allowing Dinah's to provide, unless it is 9 prohibited through some other mechanism, allowing Dinah's to use that as an easement from 10 their property for pedestrian and bicycle use from their property to Wilkie Way. Now whether 11 we want to allow that or not this rule does not prohibit that. 12 13 Ms. Tronquet: It states in paragraph one that it is for public use. 14 15 Commissioner Keller: Dinah's guests and whatever are just as members of the public as any 16 residents in the area. Public is public so they would qualify wouldn't they? 17 18 Ms. Tronquet: Yes, sure. 19 20 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So let me make a comment or two. The first thing is that it 21 will be years before the path opens. I understand from Staff that the City will be addressing the 22 parking and overflow issues before the path opens. However, once the path opens the parking 23 overflow issues may get worse so I am not sure how that will be addressed because it will be the 24 path that increases the overflow potentially. However, even though this is a potential which we 25 have to do now in order to perfect the easement from SummerHill nonetheless Dinah's by virtue 26 of this rezoning now whether a path is ever built gets increased density on their property for 27 potential future development. So that is worthwhile making clear. Dinah's gets something as a 28 result of this and the City gets the ability to build a path for which it pays for. I guess that is 29 because we didn't take advantage of the ability to force SummerHill to have a path at the time 30 that SummerHill was developed, in which case they would have paid for the path and its 31 maintenance. So that is something to consider. 32 33 The reason that we are all here because of the worry about whether there should be access to 34 Wilkie or not is because our parking requirements have minimum parking requirements. While 35 developers could have more parking than the minimum that is required there is no obligation to 36 do, there is no financial incentive to do so, in fact there are plenty of financial incentives for 37 them not to do so. There is no mechanism for the City to force them to provide for parking. So I 38 will take this opportunity to encourage the rest of the Commission that at some point in the 39 future when it reviews the parking ordinance to have a basic parking rule that says unless you are 40 in a parking assessment district for which offsite parking makes sense, and you pay for that, all 41 projects are self-parked. If that requires additional parking then is otherwise required by the 42 minimum in the Zoning Ordinance then so be it but essentially any project of a particular size 43 has to do an analysis of how much parking you would need and provide it. So I think that would 44 help in the future. 45 Page 26 1 I will support this motion. In some sense this is fixing a series of mistakes that have been made 2 and as Commissioner Lippert said not cascading them. In some sense we are leaving certainly 3 problems potentially for the future. 4 5 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) 6 7 Chair Garber: Thank you. As the Chair I will be supporting the motion for the reasons that the 8 maker and seconder have stated. I do think that even though the action before us does not 9 include the easement that had we gotten it a little earlier we may have been able to keep some of 10 the conversation out of the meeting and could have alleviated some of the issues that we had to 11 deal with this evening. 12 13 Let's get to the question. We will close the public hearing. All those in favor of the motion as 14 stated say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? The motion passes unanimously. Page 27 ATTACHMENT I 18.16.010 Purposes Chapter 18.16 NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMUNITY, AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL (CN, CC and CS) DISTRICTS Sections: 18.16.010 18.16.020 18.16.030 18.16.040 18.16.050 18.16.060 18.16.070 18.16.080 18.16.090 18.16.100 18 .. 16.010 Purposes AppJicabJe Regulations Definitions Land Uses Office Use Restrictions Development Standards Parking and Loading Perfonnance Standards Context-Based Design Criteria Grandfathered Uses Purposes The commercial zoning districts are intended to create and nlaintain sites for retail, personal services, eating and drinking establishments, hotels and other business uses in a manner that balances the needs of those uses with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. (a) Neighborhood Commercial [CN] The CN neighborhood commercial district is intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas prilnarily accommodating retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking, and office uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood, under regulations that will assure maximum conlpatibility with sunounding residential areas. (b) Community Commercia] [CC] The CC community commercial district is intended to create and maintain major commercial centers' accommodating a broad range of office, retail sales, and other commercial activities of cOlnrnunity-wide or regional significance. The CC community commercial district is intended to be applied to regionaVcommunity commercial centers identified by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. (c) Community COll1ll1ercial (2) Subdistrict [CC(2)] The community commercial (2) (CC(2)) subdistrict is intended to modify the site development regulations of the CC community commercial district, where applied in combination with such district, to allow site specific variations to the community commercial uses and development requirenlents in the CC district. (d) Service COlllmercial [CS] The CS service conmlercial district is intended to create and maintain areas accommodating citywide and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian- Ch.18.16 Pagel (Supp. No 13 101112007) 18.16.020 Applicable Regulations oriented shopping areas, and which generally require automotive access for customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment, loading or unloading, or parking of conunercial service vehicles. (Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006) 18.16.020 Applicable Regulations (a) Applicable Chapters The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures established by other relevant chapters of the Zoning Code shall apply to the CN, CS, and CC distIicts, and the subdistrict designated as CC(2), as shown on the city s Zoning Map. The term abutting residential zones, where used in this chapter, includes the Rl, R2, RMD, RM-15, RM-30, RM-40, or residential Planned Community (PC) districts, unless otherwise specifically noted. . (b) A pplica ble Combining Districts The combining districts applicable to the CN, CS, CC and CC(2) distIi.cts shall include, but shall not be limited to,. the following districts: (1) The retail shopping (R) combining district regulations, as specified in Chapter 18.30(A), shall apply to the area of the CN, CS, and CC districts designated as R combining district as shown on the city s Zoning Map. (2) The pedestrian shopping (P) combining dishict regulations, as specified in Chapter 18.30(B), shall apply to the area of the CN, CS, CC and CC(2) dishicts designated P combining district as shown on the City s Zoning Map. (Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006) 18.16.030 Definitions For the purposes of this section, the following terms are defined: (a) Charleston Shopping Center is defined as all properties zoned CN and bounded by East Charleston Road, Middlefield Road, and Cubberley Community Center. (b) Midtown Shopping District is defined as a11 properties zoned CN in the vicinity of the intersection of Colorado Avenue and Middlefield Road which border Moreno A venue, Bryson A venue, Colorado A venue, and San Carlos Court, or which border Middlefield Road in the area extending from Moreno Avenue to San Carlos Court. (c) Town and Country Village Shopping Center is defined as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Embarcadero Road, Encina A venue, and the Southern Pacific right-of-way. (d) Stanford Shopping Center is defined as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and Vineyard Lane. (e) Neighborhood-serving offices are medical offices, professional offices, travel agencies, and insurance agencies that fit the definition of a neighborhood-serving use. (Supp. No 13 I ()!lI2007) Ch. 18.16 Page 2 18.16.040 Land Uses (f) A neighborhood serving use is a use that prunarily serves individual consumers and households, not businesses, is generally pedesuian oriented in design, and does not generate noise, fumes or truck traffic greater than that typically expected for uses with a local customer base. A neighborhood-serving use is also one to whlch a significant number of customers and clients travel, rather than the provider of the goods or services traveling off-site. (g) Ground floor shall mean the first floor that is above grade. (h) Mixed use development shall mean a combination of nonresidential and residential uses ananged on a site. The uses may be combined in a vertical configuration (within a building) or in a horizontal configuration (separate buildings). (Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006) Land Uses The uses of Jand allowed by this chapter in each commercial zoning district are identified in the following tables. Land uses that are not listed on the tables are not al1owed, except where otherwise noted. Where the last column on the following tables ( Subjectto Regulations in ) includes a section number, specific regulations in the referenced section also apply to the use; however, provisions in other sections may apply as well. (a) Commercial Zones and Land Uses Permitted and conditionally permitted land uses for each commercia] zone are shown in Table 1: TABLE 1 CN, CC, CC(2) AND CS PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES [P = Permitted Use • CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required] Accessory facilities and activities customarily associated with or essential to permitted uses, and operated incidental to the principal use. Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses (J) Tire, battery, and automotive service facilities, when operated incidental to a permitted retail service or shopping center having a gross floor area of more than 30,000 square feet. :~bU,CATIONAL/R'E~lGlbU$/AN.b'A$SEM~LY·'· 'USES '" . " Business and Trade Schools Churches and Religious Institutions Private Educational Facilities Private Clubs, Lodges, or Fraternal Organizations P CUP P CUP CUP IContinued on Next Pagel Ch.18.16-Page3 P P CUP CUP CUP P P P P P P P P 18.42 18.42 18.42 (Supp. No 13 10/112007) 18.16.040 Administrative Office Services Medical Offices Professional and General Business Offices Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services but excluding construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards. Multiple-F amily Home Occupations Residential Care Homes .:.:: ... -: .... : ... :: .. : ',;', .. ::F{~:r:P.IL. U$E~ .. Eating and Drinking Services, excluding drive-in and take-out services Retail Services, excluding liquor stores Liquor stores Shopping Centers Ambulance Services Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels Boarding and Kennels Automobile Service Stations Automotive Services Convalescent Facilities Day Care Centers Small Family Day Care Homes Large Family Day Care Homes Small Adult Day Care Homes Large Adult Day Care Homes Banks and Financial Services P P CUP CUP P CUP CUP P P P P CUP CUP IContinued on Next Page] (Supp. No 13 1011/2(07) Ch. 18.16 -Page 4 Land Uses P P P P P P P 18.16.060(e) CUP CUP P P CUP CUP CUP 18.30(G) CUP P P P P P P P P P P P P P (2) p(2) 18.16.040 General Business Services Hotels Mortuaries Neighborhood Business Services Personal Services Reverse Vending Machines Farmer s Markets Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that such facilities shall remain no more than five years. ~;. ::.;~ .. ~ . .. . , :·IRANSf»;QgIAT~~Nyq~,g§ /:U·",i:;:'··'· . Parking as a principal use T ransportation Terminals P = Permitted Use Land Uses CUP P P P 18.16.060(d) CUP P P P 18.16.060(D P P P 18.16.060(D P P P CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required (1) Residential is only permitted as part of a mixed use development, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.060(b), or on sites designated as Housing Opportunity Sites in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.060(c). (2) Except drive-in services. (3) So long as drive up facilities, excluding car washes, provide full access to pedestrians and bicyclists. A maximum of two such services shall be permitted within 1,000 feet, and each use shall not be less than 150 feet from one another. (4) For properties in the CN and CS zone districts, businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. require a conditional use permit. (b) Late Night Use and Activities The following regulations restrict businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., where such site abuts or is located within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties. (1) Such businesses shaH be operated in a manner to protect residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during those hours. (2) For properties located in the CN or CS zone districts, businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure that the operations or activities are compatible with the nearby residentially zoned property. Ch. 18.16 -Page 5 (Supp. No J 3 1(11/2007) 18.16.040 Land Uses (c) eN District: Special Use Requirelnents in the Charleston and Midtown Shopping Centers The following regulations shall apply to areas of Charleston Center and the Midtown Shopping Center as defined in Section 18.16.030. Table 2 shows the uses permitted and conditionally permitted on the ground floor of the applicable areas of the Charleston Center and Midtown Shopping Centers. Pennitted and conditional uses specified in subsection (a) of this section shall only apply to the ground floor of the areas of the Charleston and Midtown Shopping Centers as ]jsted in Table 2. Uses lawfully existing on January 16,2001 may be continued as non-conforming uses but may only be replaced with uses permitted or conditionally permitted under this subsection. TABLE 2 CHARLESTON AND MIDTOWN SHOPPING CENTERS GROUND FLOOR USES P = Permitted Use • CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required • X = Prohibited Use Churches and Religious Institutions Private Educational Facilities ~~.~N:~.~~p:rY·:R~.~~::~N:p .... ;:eRP:<p~~$J.N~ IJ$~?~:·· Neighborhood-serving offices that do not exceed 2,500 square feet in floor area. Neighborhood-serving offices exceeding 2,500 square feet in floor area. Administrative office uses and general business office uses (other than neighborhood-serving travel agencies and insurance agencies) other than those legally in existence on January 16, 2001 Medical offices not exceeding 2,500 square feet in area, professional offices, travel agencies, and insurance agencies '. '.":" .. "-.',", ;::pUBLiCI6UASI~P,lJBLltlJSES .. Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services but excluding construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards. P CUP x CUP IContinued on Next Page] (Supp. No 13 10/112007) Ch.18.16-Page6 18.16.050 18.16.050 x 18.16.050 CUP 18.16.050 CUP 18.16.040 Ambulance Services Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels . Automobile Service Stations Convalescent Facilities Day Care Centers Financial Services Mortuaries Neighborhood Business Services Personal Services Reverse Vending Machines ................................. , -". .., +E~:~:~~~y 0$'ES' Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that such facilities shall remain no more than five years. CUP CUP P P CUP CUP CUP CUP P P CUP CUP CUP CUP P P P P P P CUP CUP CUP CUP P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required (d) Charleston Shopping Center: Additional Use Restrictions Land Uses 18.30(G) x = Prohibited Use (1) Any office use first occupying space at the Center on or after January 16,2001, shall obtain a written determination from the director of planning and community environment that it qualifies as a neighborhood serving use, as defined in this chapter, before occupying its premises. The applicant shall submit such information as the director shall reasonably require in order to make the detennination, and the director shall issue the determination within 30 days of receiving a complete application. Failure to submit the required information shall be grounds for determining that a business is not neighborhood-serving. Ch. 18.16 -Page 7 (Supp No]3 ](Yl/2007) 18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions (2) No more than 7,850 square feet of total floor area at the Center shall be occupied by office uses at any time. (3) Prior to approving a conditional use penuit for neighborhood-serving offices larger than 2,500 square feet in total floor area, the city shaH find that the proposed use will be neighborhood-serving, that it will be conducted in a manner that will enhance and strengthen the Center as a neighborhood resource, and that 1t will not diminish the retail strength of the center. (e) Midtown Shopping Center: Additional Use Restrictions (1) An existing ground floor office may be replaced with another office if (a) the new tenant or owner will continue the existing business or practice; or (b) a conditional use permit is issued for the new office use. (2) No conditiona1 use pennit shall be issued for any new office use on the ground floor unless, in addition to the findings required for a conditional use permit as specified in Section 18.76.010, the City finds that the proposed use will be neighborhood serving, that it will be conducted in a manner that will enhance and strengthen the Midtown Shopping District as a neighborhood resource, and that it will not diminish the retail strength of the District. (3) For properties at 711,719, and 721 Colorado Avenue, and 689 Bryson Avenue, buildings not fronting on Middlefield Avenue, designed and used for office purposes, and not well suited to other uses are exempt from tbe provisions of this subsection (b). (Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006) 18016.050 Office Use Restrictions The following restrictions shall apply to office uses: (a) Conversion of Ground Floor Housing and Non-Office Commercial to Office Medical, Professional, and Business offices shall not be located on the ground floor, unless such offices either: (1) Have been continuously in existence in that space since March 19,2001, and as of such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process of being amortized pursuant to Chapter 18.30(1); (2) Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, retajl services, persona] services, eating and drinking services, or automotive service on March 19,2001 or thereafter; (3) In the case of CS zoned properties with site frontage on EI Camino Real, were not occupied by housing on March 19, 2001; (4) Occupy a space that was vacant on March 19, 200 1 ; (5) Are located in new or remodeled ground floor area built on or after March 19,2001 if the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and drinking services, personal services, and automobile services does not decrease; (Supp. No 13 101112(07) Ch. ] 8.16 Page 8 18.16.060 Development Standards (6) Are on a site located in an area subject to a specific plan or coordinated area plan, which specifically allows for such ground floor medical, professional, and general business offices; or (7) Are located anywhere in Building E or in the rear 500/0 of Building C or D of the property at the southeast comer of the intersection of Park Boulevard and California . Avenue, as shown on sheet A2 of the plans titled 101 California Avenue Townhouse/Commercial/Office, Palo Alto, CA by Crosby, Thornton, Marshall Associates, Architects, dated June 14, 1982, revised November 23,1982, and on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. (b) Size Restrictions on Office Uses in the CN and CS Districts (1) In the CN district, office uses shall be governed by the following regulations: (A) Total floor area of pennitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided: (i) A lot shall be permitted to have at least a total floor area of 2,500 square feet of office uses, provided the uses meet all other zoning regulations. (ii) No lot shall be permitted to have more than a total floor area of 5,000 square feet of office uses. (B) Such uses may be allowed to exceed the maximum size, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.76. The maximum size for any conditional use shall be established by the director and specified in the conditional use pennit for such use. (2) In the CS district, office uses shall be governed by the following regulations: (A) No lot shall be pennitted to have more than a total floor area of 5,000 square feet of office uses. (B) Such uses may be allowed to exceed the maximmll size, subject to issuance of a conditional use pennit in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.76. The maximum size for any conditional use shall be established by the director and specified in the conditional use permit for such use. (Ord.4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006) 18.16.060 Development Standards (a) Exc1usively Non-Residential Uses Table 3 specifies the development standards for exc1usi vely non-residential uses and alterations to rion-residential uses or structures in the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS districts. These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following requirements and the context-based design cl1teria outlined in Section 18.16.090, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020. Ch. 18.16 -Page 9 (Supp. No 13 1011/2007) 18.16.060 Development Standards. TABLE 3 EXCLUSIVELY NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Ij'i',,~ ~:~~ ~,,,,,, .. !til :t'~~1~1';~il:''''~';:;;'~~~ I~~~' ~,': ~~~~ -.; ~~;'~Jf~~;;~ ,~~." ~::tf~~~~~:.~:~:t_J:~~~:~'OQ~r Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (fe) Site Width (ft) Site Depth (ft) Minimum Setbacks Front Yard (ft) Rear Yard (ft) Interior Side Yard (ft) Street Side Yard (ft) Minimum Yard (ft) for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts Build-To-Lines Minimum setbacks from alleys for structures other than public parking garages (ft) (3) Corner lots, from rear lot line on the alley Corner lots, from side lot line on the alley All lots other than corner lots Maximum Site Coverage (Supp No 13 101112(07) None Required 0-10'to 0-10'to 0-10'to create an create an create an 8' -12' None 8'-12' 8'-12' effective Required effective effective sidewalk (8) sidewalk sidewalk width width width (1). (2). (8) (1).(2). (8) (1).(2). (8) None required 20' (2) None required 10' (2) 10' (2) 10' (2) 10' (2) 50% of frontage built to setback (7) 33% of side street built to setback (7) 8' Not applicable None 20' Not applicable 50% None Required IContinued on Next Page] Ch. 18.16 -Page ]0 Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code may apply 18.16.060 Development Standards Maximum Height (tt) 25' and 50' 37' (4) 50' Standl?rd Within 150 ft. of a residential zone district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 2 r--------r--------+-------~ Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Hotels Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC zone Initial Height at side or rear lot line (ft) Slope stories 0.4:1 N/A -(6) -(6) 35' 35' 35' 2.0:1 0.4:1 1B.1B.060(e) -(5) 2.0:1 2.0:1 1B.1B.060(d) -(6) -(6) -(6) -(6) -(6) -(6) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and B feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (3) No setback from an alley is required for a public parking garage. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. (5) See additional regulations in subsection (e) of this Section 1B.16.050. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (B) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along EI Camino Real frontage. (b) Mixed Uses Table 4 specifies the development standards for new residential mixed use developments. These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following requirements and the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.16.090, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020. Ch. 18.16-Page 11 (Supp. No 13 1011/2(07) 18.16.060 Development Standards TABLE 4 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS li'r'~'''''"';;;'''''''I:! -~\c.~. : )'1. ~ '!t-F~: ,~c. I:"--~" :~ ?j.~~~:;;':"';~ I~~."~'."''''''~''~i I' ~1:e!,;",) ~~lb' , i~'b .• ~ ,4!or::J:.\l.;i:t'D ~;>o;;r~·~;.·:nrM~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ?".} r~ t:N . .. C it; ~qt~.·~ ., g~1 gns.!1: '~?~ ~_j'~;." '" . :~\". "'. ~r '.~"'" :",' ~'. ~i ' I~'~~!tt ~~>I:~.~Jf, .. :.5'-. rj. ~ ~~~ ~ ,...:1. ,'.'0 ,.~}A~ tJ~ ~~,~} >".,"-~.~ ',rJ"~ ,,:.:;. . -:~ .. ---.~. ".'., Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (if) Site Width (ft) None required Site Depth (ft) Minimum Setbacks Setback lines imposed bya special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of/his code may apply Front Yard (ft) 0' -10'to 0' -10'to 0' -10'to create an None create an create an 8'-12' 8'-12' 8'-12' effective Required effective effective (8) sidewalk sidewalk sidewalk width (8) width (8) width (8) Rear Yard (ft) 10' for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion Rear Yard abutting residential zone 10' district (ft) Interior Side Yard if abutting 10' residential zone district (ft) Street Side Yard (ft) 5' Build-To-Lines 50% of frontage built to setback (1) 33% of side street built to setback (1) Permitted Setback Encroachments Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways, and similar elements may extend up to 6' into the setback. Cornices, eaves, fireplaces, and similar architectural features (excluding flat or continuous walls or enclosures of interior space) may extend up to 4' into the front and rear setbacks and up to 3' into interior side setbacks Maximum Site Coverage 50% 50% 100% 50% Landscape/Open Space Coverage 35% 30% 20% 30% Usable Open Space 200 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer units (2); 150 sq ft per unit for 6 units or more (2) [Continued on Next Page] (Supp No 13 10/1/2(07) Ch. 18.16 -Page 12 18.16.060 Development Standards ,',H _'1':( .... ~~~~"' ..... ; :;.,,-...,..~. . .' .-~' .:. .' • ...... : ... ~.< ... '"J~~~ ....... :/.,,; ~' .. -... "f "";" ; I~>'r ~" :l/;:':.~ ~ ;i~:-~~ ~ ,~tf,l.f~i -r,.~: .'1" r: ft.J.. '. ,! '-. : ",; .. ubJect )c '~ t~ .~, .' 'j,.~f.· I.~.:' ~.'''~ :.! €·c. ', .. -~CC(2) .~ I'!~:~€ :~ egu tations: '.f%[~:~ 1 '::.J: L~:Fr.;'ljaf~:~l' r • If " . t -t' -.,': -. \: ifJ~~' ~\"~ -'I ':', ~,·tr.. ~;;.'>:;;;~~ ~ . " :. ~ Jf!"£ ~"',"I;,rr.sc Q~~~'~.:rr ·;.7~;"'·y>.j~;< "','.-,. .. ' ."'. ,~1 ' • : ,-.'.~'~ ~ i.~' .1, .~~ ." Maximum Height (tt) Standard 35' (4) 50' 37' 50' Within 150 ft. of a residential zone district (other than an RM-40 or PC 35' 35' (5) 35' (5) 35' (5) zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site Daylight Plane for 16t lines abutting Daylight plane height and slope shall be one or more residential zoning identical to those of the most restrictive districts residential zoning district abutting the lot line Residential Density (net) (3) 15 30 30 Maximum Residential Floor Area 0.5:1 (4) 0.6:1 0.6:1 Ratio (FAR) Maximum Nonresidential Floor 0.4:1 See sub-2.0:1 0.4:1 Area Ratio (FAR) section Total Mixed Use Floor Area Ratio 0.9:1 (4) (e) below (FAR) 2.0:1 1.0:1 Minimum Mixed Use Ground Floor 0.15:1 Commercial FAR(6) 0.15:1 0.25:1 (7) 0.15:1 Parking See Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 (Parking) 18.52, 18.54 (1) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (2) 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 (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space); (3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension twelve feet. (3) Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use, (4) For CN sites on EI Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential). (5) For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC) district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet. (6) Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, hotels and eating and drinking establishments. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor regulations. (7) If located in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District. (8) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along EI Camino Real frontage. (1) Residential and nomesidential mixed use projects shall be subject to site and design review in accord with Chapter 18.30(1), except that lnixed use projects with four or fewer residential units shall only require review and approval by the architectural review board. Ch. 18.l6-Page 13 (Supp. No 13 1(11/2007) 18.1S.060 Development Standards (2) Nonresidential uses that involve the use or storage of hazardous materials in excess of the exempt quantities presclibed in Title 15 of the Mumcipal Code, including but not limited to dry cleaning plants and auto repair, are prohibited in a mixed use development with residential uses. (3) Residential mixed use development is prohibited on any site designated with an Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District overlay. (c) Exclusively Residential Uses Exclusively residential uses are generally prohibited in the CN, CS, CC, and CC(2) zone districts. Such uses are allowed, however, where a site is designated as a Housing Opportunity Site in the Housing Elenlent of the Comprehensive Plan. Such sites shall be developed pursuant to the regulations for the multi-family zone designation (RM-15, RM-30, or RM-40) identified for the site in the Housing Element. (d) H.otel Regulations (1) Hotels, where they are a permitted use and generate transient occupancy tax (TOT), may develop to a maximum FAR of 2.0: 1 (except in the CC district, see Section 18.16.060(e) below). (2) Hotels may include residential condominium use, subject to: (A) No more than 25% of the floor area shall be devoted to condominium use~ (B) Nomore than 250/0 of the total number of lodging units shall be devoted to condominium use~ and (C) A mimmum FAR of 1.0 shall be provided for the hotel/condominium building(s). (e) CC District Shopping Center Floor Area Ratio Regulations (1) The maximum floor area ratio for the Town and Country Village Shopping Center shall be .35 to 1; and office uses at said shopping center shall be limited to 150/0 of the floor area of the shopping center existing as of August 1, 1989. Hate] use shall not be included as part of the .35 to 1 maximum floor area ratio, but shall not exceed an additional .25 to 1 floor area ratio, for a maximum site floor area ratio of .60 to 1. (2) The maximum floor area ratio for mixed use development for the Town and Country Village Shopping Center shall be limited to .50 to 1 ~ provided that no more than .35 to 1 floor area shall be nonresidential, consistent with part (1) above, and not more than .15 to 1 floor area shall be residential. (3) Stanford Shopping Center shall not be permitted to add more than 80,000 square feet of floor area to the total amount of floor area of the shopping center existing as of June 14, 1996, 1,332,362 square feet, for a total square footage not to exceed 1,412,362. Any hotel or mixed use development for the Stanford Shopping Center shall only be included if approved as part of a Development Agreement for the site. (f) Size of Establishments in the eN District In the CN district, permitted commercial uses shall not exceed the floor area per individual use or business establishment shown in Table 5. Such uses may be allowed to exceed the (Supp. No 13 1 (}II 12007) Ch.18.16 Page 14 18.16.060 Development Standards maximum establishment size, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with Section 18.76.010. The maximum establislnnent size for any conditional use shall be established by the director and specified in the conditional use permit for such use. TABLE 5 MAXIMUM SIZE OF ESTABLISHMENT ',,," '" Personal Services 2,500 Retail services, except grocery stores 15,000 Grocery stores 20,000 Eating and drinking services 5,000 Neighborhood business services 2,500 (g) Nuisances Prohibited All uses, whether permitted or conditional, shall be conducted in such a manner as to preclude nuisance, hazard, or commonly recognized offensive conditions or characteristics, induding creation or emission of dust, gas, smoke, noise, fumes, odors, vibrations, particulate matter, chemical compounds, electrical disturbance, humidity, heat, cold, glare, or night illuminations. Prior to issuance of a building permit, or occupancy permit, or at any other time, the building inspector may require evidence that adequate controls, measures, or devices have been provided to ensure and protect the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety, and general welfare from such nuisance, hazard, or offensive condition. (h) Outdoor Sales and Storage (1) In the CN district, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be conducted within a building, except for: (A) Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies occupying no more than 500 square feet of exterior sales and display area, (B) Farmers markets that have obtained a conditional use permit, and (C) Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit. (2) In the CC district and in the CC(2) district, the following regulations shall apply to outdoor sales and storage: (A) Except in shopping centers, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be conducted within a building, except for: (i) Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies occupying no more than 2,000 square feet of exterior sales and display area, (ii) Outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services, (iii) Farmers markets that have obtained a conditional use permit, and (iv) Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit. (B) Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 square feet shall be subject to a conditional use permit. Ch.18.16 Page 15 (Supp, No 13 1(1112007) 18.16.060 Development Standards (C) Extelior storage shall be prohibited, except as provided under subparagraph (A)(iv) of this subsection. (3) In the CS district, outdoor sales and display of Inerchandise, and outdoor eating areas operated incidental to pennitted eating and drinking services shall be pennitted subject to the following regulations: (A) Outdoor sales and display shall not occupy a total site area exceeding the gross building floor area on the site, except as authorized by a conditional use pennit. (B) Areas used for outdoor sales and display of motor vehicles, boats, campers, camp trailers, trailers, trailer coaches, house cars, or similar conveyances shall meet the minimum design standards applicable to off street parking facilities with respect to paving, grading, drainage, access to public streets and alleys, safety and protective features, lighting, landscaping, and screening. (C) Exterior storage shall be prohibited, unless screened by a solid wall or fence of between 5 and 8 feet in height. (i) Recycling Storage All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and ac.cessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. (j) Employee Showers Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 6. TABLE 6 EMPLOYEE SHOWERS REQUIRED Medical, Professional, and General Business Offices, Financial Services, Business and Trade Schools, General Business Services Retail Services, Personal Services, and Eating and Drinking Services (Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006) 10,000-19,999 20,000-49,999 50,000 and up 0-24,999 25,000-49,999 50,000-99,999 100,000 and up (Supp. No 13 ]01]/2(07) Ch.18.16-Page 16 No requirement 1 2 4 No requirement 1 2 4 18.16.070 Parking and Lo~ding 18 .. 16.070 Parking and Loading Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for an permitted and conditional uses in accord with Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 of this title. All parking and loading facilities on any site, whether required as minimums or optionally provided in addi tion to Ininimurn requirements, shaH comply with the regulations and the design standards established by Chapters 18.52 and 18.54. (Ord.4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006) 18.16.080 Performance Standards In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development in the eN, CS, ec, and CC(2) districts shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. All mixed use development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. (Ord. 4923 § 3 (part), 2006: Ord. 4925 § 3 (part), 2006) Editor's Note The text of this chapter continues on the next page. The remainder of this page has been left blank intentionally. Ch.18.16 Page 17 (Supp. No 13 101112007) ATTACHMENT J 1 Use Limitations Chapter 18.30(E) LANDSCAPE COMBINING DISTRICT (L) REGULATIONS Sections: 18.30(E).010 Specific Purposes 18.30(E).020 Applicability of Regulations ] 8.30(E).030 Zoning Map Designation 18.30(E).040 Use Limitations 18.30(E).010 Specific Purposes The landscape combining district is intended to provide regulations to ensure the provision of landscaped open space as a physical and visual separation between residential districts and intensive commercial or industrial uses, and in selected locations where landscaped buffers are desirable. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.30(E).020 Applicability of Regulations The landscape combming district may be combined with any other district established by this title, in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.80. Where so combined, the provisions of this chapter shall apply in lieu of the corresponding provisions of the general district with which the landscape combining district is combined. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.30(E).030 Zoning Map Designation. The landscape combining district shall be applied only adjoining site lines or property lines, where consistent with the purposes of this chapter, and shall be designated OJ:} the zoning map by the sYlnbol "L" within parentheses, following the general district designation for the district with which it is combined. The dimension of the landscape combining district, measured at right angles to the property line, shall be indicated on the zoning map. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.30(E).040 Use Limitations (a) Permitted Uses Within the landscape combining district, permitted uses shall be limited to the following uses only, in lieu of any uses prescribed for the general district: (1) Landscaping and screen planting; (2) Such fences or walls adjoinmg the property lme as may be required, by the provisions of the general district regulations. Ch. 18.30 -Page 11 (Supp No 13 -l0f1i2007) 18.30(E) .040 Use lim itations (b) Conditional Uses Within the landscape combining district, conditional uses shall be limited to the fonowing uses only, in lieu of any uses prescribed for the genera] district: (1) Noncommercial recreational activitie~ and facilities, when conducted primarily in open, unenclosed .landscaped areas, and when conducted accessory to or in association with uses listed as pennitted uses or as conditional uses in the general district; (2) Pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian pathways, walkways and trails, or vehicular access drives, when serving uses listed as permitted or conditional uses in the general district. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) (Supp. No 13 -101112007 Ch. 18.30 Page 12 ATTACHMENT K 18.30(G).040 Design Approval Required Chapter 18.30(G) SITE AND DESIGN (D) REVIEW COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Sections: 18.30(G).010 Specific Purposes 18.30(G).020 Applicability of Regulations 18.30(G).030 Zoning Map Designation 18.30(G).040 Design Approval Required 18.30(G).050 Application 18.30(G).055 Application Process 18.30(G).060 Action by Commission 18.30(G).070 Action by Council 18.30(G).080 Tenn Expiration 18.30(G).010 Specific Purposes The site and design review combining district is intended to provide a process for review and approval of development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. 3890 § 18,1989: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.30(G).020 Applicability of Regulations The site and design review combining district may be combined with any other district established by this title, in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.80. Where so combined, the site and design review process established by this chapter shall apply to all sites. In addition, the provisions of this chapter shall apply to all sites in the OS open space district, and shall apply to all sites in the AC agricultural conservation district. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.30(G).030 Zoning Map Designation Where combined with any general district other than OS or AC, the site and design review district shall be designated on the zoning map by the symbol "D" within parentheses, following the general district designation for the district with which it is combined. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.30(G).040 Design Approval Required Site and design approval shall be secured prior to issuance of any permit or other approval for the construction of any building or the establishment of any use on any site within the site and design Ch. 18.30 Page 17 (Supp. No 13 1011/2007) 18.30(G).060 Action by Commission review, combining district, or on any site which is made subject to the provisions of this chapter by an express requirement of any other provision of this code. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.30(G).050 Application Application for site and design review shall be made to the director and shall be accompanied by the application fee prescribed in the municipal fee schedule. The application shall include the following: (a) A site plan showing the location of all proposed buildings, structures, planted or landscaped areas, paved areas, and other improvements, and indicating the proposed uses or activities within the site; (b) Drawings or sketches showing the elevations of all proposed buildings, sufficiently dimensioned to indicate the general scale, height, and bulk of such buildings. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.30(G).055 Application Process (a) The applicant seeking site and design approval shall initially submit to the planning commission a site plan and elevations as described in Section 18.30(G).050. The plans and elevations may be preliminary in nature but must show all pertinent information requested by the director. (b) If the planning commission recommends denial, a detailed site plan and elevations consistent with the planning commission recommendation shall be forwarded directly to the city council. ( c) If the planning commission recommends approval, a detailed site plan and elevations consistent with the planning commission recommendation shall be forwarded to the architectural review board for review, except in the case of single-family and accessory uses. The architectural review board shall make a recommendation on the plans and elevations based on the findings for architectural review in Section 18. 76.020( d). ( d) The plans and elevations, as approved by the planning commission and the architectural review board, are submitted with recommendations to council for [mal action. (Ord. 4826 § 120,2004: Ord. 3108 § 15,1979) 18.30(G).060 Action by Commission Unless the application for design approval is diverted for minor architectural review under Section 18. 76.020(b )(3)(D), the planning commission shall review the site plan and drawings, and shall recommend approval or shall recommend such changes as it may deem necessary to accomplish the following objectives: (a) To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. (Supp. No 13 10/1/2007 Ch. 18.30 Page 18 1S.30(G).OSO Term -Expiration (b) To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. (c) To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. (d) To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. 4826 § 121,2004: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) lS.30(G).070 Action by Council To the extent that site and design review is contemplated under this chapter, and upon receipt of the recommendation of the planning commission, the council may 'approve, modifY, or disapprove the proposed plans submitted pursuant to this chapter. No. building permit or other permit or approval for building construction or use of the site shall be issued or granted until the plans have been approved by the city council, or by the director of planning and community environment as provided in Section 18.76.020(b)(3)(D). (Ord. 4826 § 122, 2004: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) lS.30(G).OSO Term -Expiration In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the effective date of approval thereof, said approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Whenever a vesting tentative map is approved or conditionally approved pursuant to Chapter 21.13 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Subdivision .Map Act, the approval pursuant to this chapter shall be valid until the expiration of the vesting tentative map, or expiration of development rights under the final map. Applications may be made for extensions, but only in conjunction with applications for extensions of the vesting tentative map or the final vesting map pursuant to Chapter 21.13 and the Subdivision Map Act. (Ord. 3689 § 5, 1986: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) Ch. 18.30 Page 19 (Supp. No 13 -1011/2007) Attachment L ('i '{r-.,,·y OIJ p;\ 'I' t) !~ f 'T"("~ ,/ 1 .,...,'-. .t\ . ..ILj 1. } (~():rvlPREHENS I'TE PLA.N 1998 -2010 L/1ND 1J SE D EFL'\iITI () NS The following definitions correspond to the categories on the Land Use and Circulation Map. Each definition includes standards for density or intensity of use. For residential categories, densities are expressed in terms of persons per acre as well as housing units per acre. The number of persons per acre is based on the number of units muJtiplied by the 1990 average household size of 2.24 persons. The standards for population density are intended to be a planning guideline and are not intended to establish an absolute limit. In non-residential areas, intensity is expressed using "floor area ratios" or FAR. FAR is the ratio of building area to lot area on a site. The FAR standards are consistent with those contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance. They were initially established to estimate daytime population and employment in different parts of the City. In the definitions below, FARs represent an expectation of the overall intensity of future development. Actual F ARs on individual sites will vary. COfllmercial Neighborhood Commercial: Includes shopping centers with off-street parking or a cluster of streetfront 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 locate in this category. Non-residential floor area ratios may range up to 0.4, except for mixed use projects on El Camino Real where non-residential floor area ratios may range up to 0.5. Regional/Community Commercial: Larger shopping centers and districts that have wider variety goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non-retail services such as offices and banks. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Village, and University AvenuelDowntown. Non-residential floor area ratios range from 0.35 to 2.0. Service Commercial: Facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying on customers arriving by car. These uses do not necessarily benefit from being in high volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers or Downtown. Typical uses include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards, 'appliance stores, and restaurants, including fast service types. In almost all cases, these uses require good automobile and service access so that customers can safely load and unload without impeding traffic. In some locations, residential and mixed use projects may be appropriate in this land use category. Examples of Service Commercial areas include San Antonio Road, El Camino Real, and Embarcadero Road northeast of the Bayshore Freeway. Non-residential floor area ratios may range up to 0.4. Floor area for hotel uses may range up to 2.0. Commercial Hotel: This category allows facilities for use by temporary overnight occupants on a transient basis, such as hotels and motels, with associated conference centers and similar uses. Restaurants and other eating facilities, meeting rooms, small retail shops, personal services, and other services ancillary to the hotel are also allowed. This category can be applied in combination with another land use category. Floor area ratio may range up to 2.0 for the hotel portion of the site. Attachment M Design Guidelines and the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, endorsed by the City Architectural Review Board in June 2002. This impact will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation 7-2, which would require changes in the Project design to comply with these design guidelines. The revised Project (May 2004) would implement this mitigation measure by deleting the hotel land use and surface parking lot and placing 'surface parking behind the residential buildings that front El Camino Real. D. Transportation and Parking Impact 8-1 concerns initial Project impacts on Year 2010 operation at the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection. The initial Project would have caused this intersection to fall below acceptable levels of service during the peak commute hours. This impact .will be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact by implementation of Mitigation 8-1, which would require either: 1) the installation of an additional eastbound, right-turn lane from Charleston Road onto southbound Alma Street; or 2) by revising the size and design of the Project so that the additional traffic from the Project does not warrant this right-turn lan.e. The revised Project (May 2004) would implement this mitigation measure in that the size and scale of the residential density.of the Project has been reduced by 40%, the hotel land use has beeh eliminated 'from the Project, and site access has been modified (access from El Cami'no Real and Wilkie Way only) so that the right-turn lane improvement is not warranted. . Impact 8-1A concerns secondary initial Project impacts to bicyclists and the bicycle lanes along Charleston Road resulting from the implementation of the eastbound~ right-turn lane at the Charleston. Road/Alma Street intersection, recommended in Mitigation 8-1. The installation of this right-turn lane would require relocation and/or elimination of the bicycle lanes. This secondary impact is unavoidable and cannot be reduced to a less-than- significant level. However, as noted above, the revised Project (May 2004) would eliminate the need to install a right-turn lane at this intersection. Therefore, the bicycle lanes would be retained and this secondary impact would be eliminated. Impact 8-1B concerns secondary initial ·Project impacts associated with the necessary right-of-way to implement Mitigation 8-1 (installation of the eastbound, right-turn lane at the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection) . and retain the existing bicycle lanes. Additional right-of-way would need to be secured/purchased to accommodate the right-turn lane and bicycle lanes, as well as the relocation of the existing railroad crossing gates and signal standards. This secondary impact is unavoidable and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. However, 6 040712 syn 8250072 as noted above t the revised Project (May 2004) would eliminate the need to insta.ll a right-turn lane at this intersection. Therefore, the securing of additional right-or-way would not be necessary and this secondary impact would be eliminated. Impact 8-2 concerns initial Project impacts at the Charleston Road/Wilkie Way intersection. The initial Project would have generated an increase in left-turn movements from westbound Charleston Road onto Wilkie Way to access the Wilkie Way driveway, This ;i.mpact will be mit~gated to .a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation 8-2, which requires changes in the s1'gnal phasing (split phase) at this intersection. Implementation of this mitigation measure will be required as a conditioI1-of revised. Project approval. Impact 8-3 concerns initial Project impacts to the traffic flow and operation along Charleston Road, reSUlting from eastbound left-turn movements into the easterly, main Charleston Road driveway. This impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mi tigation 8-3, which requires the installation of a left-turn deceleration lane on the westbound Charleston Road approach to this ,driveway. However, the revised Project (May 2004) would 'eliminate this potential impact and this mitigation would not be required in that: '1} the revised project proposes' that no access driveways along the Charleston Road frontagei and 2) the recently adopted Charleston/Arastradero Corridor 'Improvement Plan' (2004) recommends the installation of a center tree planting median at this location, which would prohibit .left-turn movements at this location. Impact 8-4 concerns initial, Project impacts on the traffic flow and operation along Charleston Road, resulting from outbound, left-turn movements from the main Charleston Road driveway onto westbound Charleston Road. This impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementing Mitigation 8-4, which requires the installation of a left-turn acceleration lane on westbound Charleston Road. However, the revised Project (May 2004) would eliminate this potential impact and this mitigation would not be required in that: 1) the revised project proposes no access driveways along the Charleston Road frontagej and 2) the recently adopted Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan (2004) recommends the installation of a center tree planting median at this location, which would prohibit left-turn movements at this location. Impact 8-4A concerns the, secondary impact that would result from potential diversion of initial Project traffic from the easterly, main Charleston Road driveway to the Wilkie Way driveway in the event a center median is' installed along Charleston Road. The installation of a center median would prohibit all inbound and 7 040712 syn 8250072 ou·tbound lefJc-turn movements at this Charleston Road driveway, which would cause the diversion. Implementation of Mitigation 8-4A would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant llevel by prohibi ting project access onto Wilkie Way or by reducing the number of residential trips. It is noted that the FEIR analyzed project traffic to determine the potential for impacts to the ,character of Wilkie'Way, as a local residential street. This impact was analyzed based on the completion of a Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) Index Assessment, which is summarized in the FEIR. The TIRE Index Assessment was prepared using a threshold of 0.2, consistent with the threshold used for the TIRE Index Assessment in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan EIR. The assessment found that the initial Project would not contribute the amount of traffic to Wilkie Way that wouid' reach this 0.2 threshold and, would therefore not result in a significant traffic impact. As the revised Project (May 2004) would result in fewer vehicle trips at this driveway, this \ conclusion would not change for Wilkie Way_ The impact on Edlee Avenue would be significant using the 0.2 TIRE analyses since Edlee Avenue has such a low average daily trip count. For comparative purposes, another TIRE Index Assessment was completed in June 2004 'to assess impacts to Wilkie Way from the revised Proj ect (May 2004). This comparative assessment used a more stringent threshold of 0.1 and found that the revised Project (May 2004) would contribute the amount of traffic to Wilkie Way that would reach the more stringent threshold of 0.1. Using this more stringent threshold of 0.1, the revised Project (May 2004) would generate 558 net new daily trips, which is more than the 0.1 threshold of 380 trips. As part of the project review, it will be reconunended that the Wilkie Way driveway be limited to emergency vehicle access , only'. Impact 8-5 concerns initial Project impacts to the traffic flow and operation along Charleston Road, resulting from outbound, left-turn movements from the westerly Charleston Road driveway onto westbound Charleston Road. Implementation of Mitigation 8-5 would reduce this impact to a less~than-significant level by prohibiting left-turns from this driveway onto westbound Charleston Road. The revised Project (May 2004) would eliminate this westerly driveway; therefore, this potential impact would be eliminated. Impact 8-6 concerns inadequate emergency vehicle access at two locations on the Project site plan. Implementation of Mitigation 8-6 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring that the Project site plan be revised to comply with the emergency vehicle access requirements of the Fire Department. The revised Project (May 2004) incorporate emergency vehicle access, which would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. 8 040712 syn 8250072 Impact 8-7 concerns initial Project impacts to neighboring residential streets from inadequate hotel. parking supply and the potential for parking overflow into the adjacent residential neighborhood~ Implementation of Mitigation 8-7 would reduce this impact to a less~than-significant level by either: 1) revising the hotel parking so that it complies with the City's off-street parking requirements; or 2) requiring the preparation and implementation of an on-going parking management program, which would moni tor. hotel .event· parking over time 0 The revised Proj ect (May 2004) reduce this· impact to a less-than-significant level in that.: 1) the hotel land use component has been eliminated from the Project; and 2) the site plan has been designed to comply with the City's off-street parking standards and requirements. Impact 8-8 concerns initial Project impacts to bicycle safety at the westbound and northbound approaches to the EI Camino Real/Charleston Road intersection. The initial Project would have generated addi tional bicycle trips t contributing to exist.ing, bicycle safety deficiencies at this intersection. Implementation of Mitigation 8-8 .. would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level by requiring the Applicant to: 1) dedicate additional right-of-way along the project frontage of El Camino Real and Charleston Road to permit the widening of the bicycle routei and 2) contribute a fair share cost to eliminate the existing \\pork chop" island on the northbound EI Camino Real approach to this intersection. These measures will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. Impact 8-9 concerns impacts and damage to existing public roadways associated with initial Project construction. Implementation 0,£ Mitigation 8-9 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring that the Applicant prepare and comply with a ·Construction Logistics Plan, which would include a "before and after" pavement evaluation program. This measure will be required as a condition of revised Project approval. 9 040712 syn 8250072 Executive Offices Mr. Curtis Williams~ AICP Chief Planning/Transportation Official Planning & Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Attachment N RE: Planning & Transportation Commission Division Staff Report to the City of Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission dated July 8, 2009. Dear Mr. Williams. Dinah's Hotel, a California corporation and owner of the Dinah's Garden Hotel property located at 4261 El Camino Real in Palo Alto (Santa Clara County Assessor's Parcel Number 148-01-005) understands that the City of Palo Alto proposes to change the zoning of the portion of said property extending from the Hotel site to Wilkie Way from RM-15 to CS(L). Dinah's Hotel Corporation has no objection to this proposed zoning change. Sincerely, DINAH'S HOTEL, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION George O. McKee~ President Dinah's Garden Hotel 4261 El Camino Real Palo Alto, California 94306-4405 650 • 493 • 2844 Fax 650· 856 • 4713 800 • 227 • 8220 www.dinahshotel.com Attachment 0 Charleston Meadows Association cmaboard@googlegroups.com To: Planning and Transportation Committee From: Board of Directors, Charleston Meadows Association Cc: Planning Director Curtis Williams, Planner Elena lee Date: July 8, 2009 Re: 4261 and 4273 EI Camino Real (Dinah's Hotel Property Zoning amendment) We are writing on behalf of the Charleston Meadows Association Board of Directors. Our neighborhood association comprises nearly 350 single family homes in the neighborhood bounded by Alma and EI Camino Real, and by Adobe Creek and W Meadow Dr and traces its roots to the original development of our neighborhood in the early Fifties. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our board's perspective on the proposed zoning change and on the pedestrian/bicycle access path to the SummerHill park. We first want to thank Staff, particularly Planning Director Curtis Williams and Planner Elena lee for their efforts in engaging with members of our neighborhood. We have had several discussions with them, including a well attended special neighborhood meeting. We were able to have a detailed discussion on the merits and potential impacts of the planned access. This is a sensitive issue for us as a neighborhood because historically Wilkie Way has been, and continues to be, plagued by overflow parking from developments along EI Camino: from years with events at the Hyatt and Elks, to current ongoing problems generated from Arbor Real, and our concern is that, in the absence of mitigations, these parking issues may be exasperated in the future by both access and this zone change. Unfortunately the SummerHill development suffers the same trifecta of parking flaws as the host of developments that were approved around the same time. It is characterized by: 1. narrow private streets with no on-street parking, 2. resident parking that relies entirely on garage parking (with no driveway or apron) and 3. the city's guest parking allocation formula for these types of planned communities which has been demonstrated to be inadequate. So we are concerned that access to the SummerHill development will encourage residents of that complex to use Wilkie Way as a convenient parking lot. In addition, we are concerned that the enhanced zoning and corresponding higher FAR for Dinah's could be problematic for the neighborhood since it is being considered absent any information about their future plans for redevelopment or sale. At the same time we recognize the benefits of pedestrian access for both our own neighborhood and for the future residents of SummerHill, who would have easier pedestrian access to our neighborhood, Robles Park, the bridge to Mountain View, etc. So, as a matter of equity and in keeping with the assurances of prior City Councils and City Staff to protect our neighborhood from overflow parking, we support the pedestrian and bicycle access plan on the condition that the following mitigating strategies be implemented concurrent with any rezoning of this parcel: a) that to correct the current issue and diminish anticipated future problems with overflow parking, a permit parking program be put into effect on Wilkie Way and the affected residences on the intersecting streets from Whitclem to Charleston Road, inclusive (since the Charleston- Arastradero plan prevents on-street parking on Charleston). b) that Dinah's be required to underwrite funding for this permit parking program in consideration of the enhanced zoning they are poised to receive. c) that in order to assure that access in this area will always be limited to pedestrian and bicycle access and that *no* vehicular access will be granted in the future, the access path itself be of a width to preclude vehicular use and that the remainder of the easement be planted with mature, protected tree species (Redwoods and Oaks) so future City Councils, Staffs and Commissions will find it all the more difficult to reverse the current commitment of no vehicular access to Wilkie. Thank you for your work and consideration of our neighborhood's concerns. Respectfully, Charleston Meadows Association Board of Directors Sara Armstrong, President Nancy Fox, Director John Hofer, Director Roger Kohler, Director Keri Wagner, Director