Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-31 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: January 31, 2018 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2755 El Camino Real [16PLN-00464]: Recommendation for Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapter 18.30 (Combining Districts) to Add a New Combining District to Allow for High Density Multi-family Housing that Includes a Workforce Housing Component to be Located on Public Facilities Zoned Properties Within 0.5 Miles of Fixed Rail Transit; Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Apply the New Combining District to the Project Site; and Site and Design Approval to Allow Construction of a 57 unit Multi-family Residence at the Project Site. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was published for public comment on January 19, 2018 for a circulation period ending on February 20, 2018. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 3.PUBLIC HEARING: Recommendation to the City Council to Adopt an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose, PF, OS and AC Districts), Sections 18.28.050 (Site Development Standards), 18.28.060 (Additional PF District Design Requirements), and 18.28.090 (Parking and Loading) to Revise Development Standards for City Essential Services Buildings and Appurtenant or Ancillary Structures Including Emergency Communication Towers, and Public Parking Facilities within the Public Facilities (PF) Zone District within the Downtown and California Avenue Districts, and to Make Other Clerical or Technical Corrections. CEQA: The proposed Ordinance is evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Palo Alto Public Safety Building and Public Parking Garage Project at 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue. The Draft EIR was published January 8, 2018 for a 45 day comment period ending February 22, 2018. For More Information, Contact Amy French at Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. 4.PUBLIC HEARING: Recommend that the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) to Add a New Section Imposing an Annual Office Limit and Setting Forth Related Regulations, and to Repeal the Respective Regulations from Chapter 18.85 (Interim Zoning Ordinances). The Proposed Ordinance will perpetuate the existing annual limit of 50,000 square feet of new office/R&D development per year with modifications regarding the review process, unallocated area rollover provisions, and exemptions as discussed by the City Council on September 5, 2017. CEQA: This Ordinance is within the scope of the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified and adopted on November 13, 2017 by Council Resolution Nos. 9720 and 9721. For More Information, Please Contact Clare Campbell at clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 5.December 13, 2017 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Agenda Items Adjournment December 13, 2017 Draft Minutes _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: Chair Ed Lauing Vice Chair Susan Monk Commissioner Michael Alcheck Commissioner Przemek Gardias Commissioner William Riggs Commissioner Doria Summa Commissioner Asher Waldfogel Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8852) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 1/31/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Assistant Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. Background This document includes the following items:  PTC Meeting Schedule  PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments)  Tentative Future Agenda Commissioners are encouraged to contact Yolanda Cervantes (Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi- judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards- and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. Attachments:  Attachment A: January 31, 2018 PTC Meeting Schedule & Assignments (DOCX) Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2018 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2018 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/10/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs, Waldfogel 1/17/2018 4:00PM Downtown Library Special 1/31/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/14/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/28/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/14/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/28/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/11/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/25/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/09/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/30/2018 6:00PM Council Chambers Regular 6/13/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 6/27/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/11/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/25/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/08/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/29/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/12/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/26/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/10/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/31/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/14/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/28/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/12/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/26/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers CANCELLED 2018 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Ed Lauing Doria Summa Susan Monk Przemek Gardias Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Przemek Gardias Susan Monk Ed Lauing Doria Summa July August September October November December Asher Waldfogel Ed Lauing Przemek Gardias Susan Monk Michael Alcheck Asher Waldfogel Billy Riggs Michael Alchek Asher Waldfogel Doria Summa Przemek Gardias Ed Lauing Subcommittees Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2018 Tentative Future Agenda January 22, 2018, 2018 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics February 14, 2018  Study Session on Traffic Safety and Operations Annual Report (2017)  Ordinance to Modify Special Setback Map at 375 Hamilton Ave  Affordable Housing Combining District February 28, 2018  North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Scoping  Housing Element Update March 14, 2018  ADU Code Update Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8668) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/31/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2755 El Camino Real: Zoning Code Amendment and Site and Design Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2755 El Camino Real [16PLN-00464]: Recommendation for Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapter 18.30 (Combining Districts) to Add a New Combining District to Allow for High Density Multi-family Housing that Includes a Workforce Housing Component to be Located on Public Facilities Zoned Properties Within 0.5 Miles of Fixed Rail Transit; Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Apply the New Combining District to the Project Site; and Site and Design Approval to Allow Construction of a 57 unit Multi-family Residence at the Project Site. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was published for public comment on January 19, 2018 for a circulation period ending on February 20, 2018. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) consider the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration in Attachment P together with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan included in the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment D and recommend that City Council: 1. Adopt the proposed ordinance in Attachment B to create a new “Workforce Housing Combining District;” City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 2. Adopt the Proposed Ordinance in Attachment C to approve a Zoning Map Amendment applying the new combining district to the project site at 2755 El Camino Real; and 3. Approve the Site and Design application for the project based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval included in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment D. Report Summary The applicant requests approval of a four-story multifamily residential building with 57 dwelling units and one level of below grade parking. The project is intended to test the idea of smaller, “workforce” housing units in transit served areas and is located on a former VTA Park and Ride lot, which is zoned Pubic Facilities (PF) and designated Major Institution/Special Facilities in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The project is subject to Site and Design review. The Major Institution/Special Facilities (MISP) land use designation allows for higher density multi-family housing close to transit centers. However, the City of Palo Alto Zoning Code does not currently allow multi-family housing on PF zoned properties. In addition, the project would not conform to the development standards of the PF zone district, particularly with respect to density or residential floor area. Therefore, the applicant also proposes the following legislative actions, which would be required to accommodate the proposed development: 1. Amendment of the Zoning Code to create a new combining district that could be applied to PF zoned properties within 0.5 miles of major fixed rail transit; and 2. Amendment of the Zoning Map to apply the new combining district to the subject site. This Zoning Code Text Amendment could be applied to other sites in the PF Zone within 0.5 miles of major fixed rail transit in the future through a Zoning Map Amendment, a legislative process subject to PTC review and Council’s approval. Since review by the City Council, PTC and ARB, the applicant has made a number of changes which are presented later in this report. Key issues for the PTC to consider as they provide comments and a recommendation to the City Council include the following:  The project’s consistency with previous key Council and Commission comments;  Consideration of the proposed ordinance to establish a new workforce housing combining district with particular attention to the workforce housing obligation and local preference requirements for tenants;  The proposed transit demand management (TDM) plan; and  Enforcement of the TDM and local preferences. A location map of the project site is included as Attachment A. The project plans are included as Attachment S. Background City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 In October 2017, the City Council adopted the city’s Comprehensive Plan with updated transportation, land use, and housing policies. A week later, the Council endorsed a colleagues’ memo seeking to advance housing related policies to encourage diverse housing near jobs, transit and services (Attachment E). The memo seeks to promote housing by increasing floor area where appropriate, eliminating unit limits, and exploring car-light housing projects. The memo directs staff to return with a housing work plan, which will be presented to the City Council for discussion in early February. One of the items on the work plan is the subject zoning text amendment to encourage workforce housing near transit. The concept of the subject project and ordinance was discussed by the City Council in September 12, 2016 when it considered a prescreening application for a substantially similar project. The subject project has been termed a “pilot” project to allow a workforce housing development and to evaluate the effectiveness of reaching the intended tenant mix, transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and on-site parking at a ratio of approximately one space per unit. Such a project would necessarily require modification to base district zoning regulations. The subject application was filed in December 2016. The PTC conducted a study session on June 14, 2017 to provide preliminary feedback on the parameters of the Zoning Code Text Amendment and the Site and Design Application. The table below summarizes comments from the commission during that study session and how the project has been revised to respond to those comments. The prior PTC report is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58216. Meeting minutes are also available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61559. Preliminary Council, Board and Commission Comments The City Council and PTC reviewed prior iterations of the subject application that did not include any affordable housing units and was larger in gross floor area as well as number of units. An updated project description follows after this review of earlier Council and PTC comments. The City Council did not take a formal action, but noted the following comments. A transcript of the meeting is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54337.  Most thought the subject location was good for housing. Some supported retail on the ground floor, others did not, or at least, not at the expense of housing.  Some expressed concern about the increased development potential of the site, noting the current PF zoning allows certain limited uses and what was being discussed was a project that exceeded development standards of other districts.  There was some discussion regarding deed restricting the units to limit tenancy to people who did not own cars. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4  There was interest for limiting rental units to certain individuals employed as teachers, public safety workers and seniors  Some noted the land dedication on Oregon Expressway as a positive to improve traffic flow conditions at the intersection with El Camino Real  There was support for a rooftop garden to enhance outdoor open space opportunities  Some expressed a strong interest for affordable housing units  Many believed the TDM plan with aggressive measures, enforcement, and monitoring would be critical to such a project. Individual PTC commissioners expressed some of the following comments when the Commission reviewed the project in June:  The project was too large for the site  Parking information was requested that compared this project to 801 Alma. There were expressions that the site had too much parking, as well as comments suggesting more parking was needed  Concern about future tenants participating in the evergreen neighborhood residential preferential parking program  Support for a mixed use development (ground floor retail)  Concern that the project is not consistent with the PF zoning district  Affordable housing units were desired as part of the project and that more benefit from the development should be given back to the community  Preferential tenant occupancy for Palo Alto workers was desired  Consider how ride sharing and delivery services would access and use the site, increase the number of guest spaces  Interest in penalties being applied if the project fails to meet the TDM plan  Desire for a stipend for tenants to take advantage of ride sharing services to reinforce the car-light interest of this development. The city’s Architectural Review Board also conducted a preliminary review of the project and a copy of their transcript is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61782. The Board had several comments related to the overall design and aesthetics, and identified areas for suggested improvements. They also offered the following additional comments:  Concern regarding the parking layout, access, design, and functionality  The bicycle parking and lobby was not functional  The building appeared too massive  Interest in a roof deck  Need for an area to support ride sharing services After receiving comments from the PTC and ARB, the applicant revised the project design and the staff worked with consultants to complete an environmental and economic analysis to inform the City’s review of the proposal. The following section details the current project City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 description and modification to address some of the comments listed above. The economic analysis, environmental analysis, and staff’s analysis of the current proposal are discussed in the sections that follow. Project Description As shown in the plan set and discussed in the applicant’s project description in Attachments R and S respectively, the applicant is proposing to construct a 50-foot tall, four-story, multi-family apartment building that would include 40 studio units and 17 one-bedroom units (57 total units). All units would be for rent (i.e. they would not be for sale as condominiums). Twelve (12) units would be deed restricted for a period of 99 years; six would be restricted at 140% of the County’s Average Median Income (AMI) and six would be restricted at 150% of AMI.1 Forty-five units would not be deed restricted, but would be designed to accommodate members of the local workforce. In addition to deed restricted units, the applicant would pay affordable housing impact fee estimated to be approximately $603,000. The building also includes a below-grade parking garage with 64 parking spaces; 60 of these spaces would be provided via automated “puzzle parking” lift systems. Four additional at grade parking spaces are also provided for guests. A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.0:1 is proposed for the project. The applicant also proposes to dedicate an easement to the County of Santa Clara to allow for the future buildout of a right-hand turn lane and bike lane on Page Mill Road. The applicant is proposing a Zoning Code Text Amendment to create a new combining district that could be applied to sites within the PF Zone and within 0.5 mile of fixed rail transit. The new combining district would outline the requisite development standards for any site that applies the combining district. To apply the new combing district to a site, the applicant is also requesting an ordinance that would amend the Zoning Map. The proposed ordinances and any future request for a Zoning Map Amendment to apply the combining district to a particular parcel would be a legislative action requiring a recommendation from the PTC and Council approval. Key changes to the project based on previous comments from Council, PTC, and ARB include:  The requested floor area ratio (FAR) has been reduced from 2.25:1 to 2.0:1  Parking information for comparable projects was obtained and supports the reduced parking ratios proposed by the applicant, as discussed later in the analysis.  Further information about the Evergreen-Park Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program is provided later in this report under parking. 1 The AMI for a family of four is used as a baseline and is currently $113,300. However, for smaller units with one or two person occupancy, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) calculates median income at $79,300 and $80,560, respectively. As discussed later in this report, there is no standard definition of “workforce housing” in State law, however California Government Code Section 65008 defines “middle income housing” as 150 percent of the median in the County and this has been considered synonymous with the term workforce housing in the proposed ordinance. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6  A short-term pick-up area would be provided on El Camino Real for car pick-up/drop-off services in the current location of the bus stop. The bus stop would be moved closer to the corner of El Camino Real, consistent with VTA’s recommendations.  The parking count was increased from 45 to 68 parking stalls with some guest parking spaces provided at grade. A longer drive aisle with turnaround space is also provided. The revisions to the drive aisle improve queueing capacity and improve the building frontage of the project along El Camino Real.  The project would comply with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) ordinance by paying an estimated $600,900 in impact fees to fund BMR housing development. The BMR ordinance does not currently require that affordable units be provided on site for rental projects. With adoption of AB 1505 (Bloom) in late 2017, this may change in the future. The BMR ordinance had not yet been adopted, and therefore was not a requirement at the time of the Council prescreening for this project.  The applicant also proposes to deed restrict 20 percent of the units provided: six units at 140 percent of AMI and six at 150 percent of AMI and to include a local preference for all units. This preference (for residents who already live or work in the vicinity) would also be codified in the proposed Workforce Housing Combining District Ordinance (Attachment B).  All bicycle parking is provided at grade.  A draft TDM plan has been proposed and is included in Attachment O of this report. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and are subject to PTC review:  Zoning Code Text Amendment: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80.080. This type of legislative change requires a prescreening before Council, which has been completed. A request for a zoning text amendment requires at least one public hearing before the PTC and shall forward its recommendations to the City Council for final action.  Zoning Map Amendment: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80.060 and 18.80.070 and is similar to the process described above.  Site and Design: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.30(G). Site and design is intended to provide a review process for 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. If recommended for approval, the project requires review before the Architectural Review Board before the project is forwarded to the City Council for final action of all requested entitlements. Site and Design applications are evaluated to specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. The findings for the PTC to approve a site and design application are provided in Attachment D. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Analysis2 The subject property is currently a vacant parking lot located at the northeastern corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Adjacent zoning and land uses include the four-story Sunrise Assisted Living Senior Housing Facility to the northwest and the three-story Silverwood Condominium Complex to the northeast, both of which are located on parcels zoned Planned Community (PC). The PC Ordinance for these adjacent developments allow for a higher density, height, and FAR than what would have been allowed under the previous zoning regulations at these sites, which was CN and RM-40 for the Sunrise Assisted Living and RM-40 for the Silverwood Condominiums. Across El Camino Real is the PF zoned Mayfield Soccer Complex; across Page Mill Road there are retail uses, including a two-story AT&T building, and a recently approved mixed-use development project on parcels zoned Service Commercial (CS) at 425 Page Mill. The ten-story Palo Alto Square Office complex in the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road is zoned PC. Palo Alto Square and the nearby Stanford Research Park provide extensive employment opportunities within the City of Palo Alto. The project is located within 0.5 mile of the California Avenue Caltrain Station and within 200 feet of extensive VTA transit options. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The project site is designated ‘Major Institutions/Special Facilities’ in the Comprehensive Plan, which is defined as “institutional, academic, governmental, and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organizations. Examples are hospitals and City facilities. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations.” Multi-family housing near a transit center, as noted above, would be consistent with this land use designation. Density allowances for housing within this land use designation are not defined. The subject property is not publicly owned or operated by a non-profit organization; it is privately owned. Goals and programs outlined in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourage housing within proximity to public transit, employment opportunities, and commercial areas as well as a range in types of units to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs. In particular, Housing Program H2.1.1 encourages consideration of amendments to the zoning code to allow high-density residential for mixed use or single use projects in commercial areas within one-half mile of fixed rail stations. The project would encourage high-density housing within one-half mile of transit and in close proximity to adjacent commercial uses, consistent with this program goal. In addition, Program H2.1.2 encourages high density residential 2 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommended action. 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 development close to urban amentities and where there is sufficient roadway capacity. The proposed development would be located within close proximity to a wide variety of urban amenities, transit, and employment opportunities and there is sufficient roadway capacity. Comprehensive Plan Policies N-5.4 requires that all potential sources of odor and/or toxic are contaminants shall be adequately buffered, or mechanically or otherwise mitigated to avoid odor and toxic impacts that violate relevant human health standards. As discussed in the environmental analysis, Volatile Organic Compounds that may be present in the soils could be impactful to future residents if a vapor mitigation system is not installed in the subterranean garage. In addition Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) screening levels were determined to exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Managagement District’s thresholds and could be impactful to future residents if not addressed. In order to ensure compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policy N- 5.4, conditions of approval 10 and 11 are included in the Record of Land Use Action. The findings in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment D include a complete consistency analysis with the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project, as conditioned, was found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Compliance4 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) does not currently have a zoning designation that would allow for the proposed development. The project site is in the Public Facilities (PF) zone district. The PF district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. Multi-family housing is not a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the PF Zone District, though the new comprehensive plan encourages housing near transit centers. During the Council prescreening, some councilmembers expressed concerns regarding rezoning the site from a PF Zone. In response to this concern, the applicant has proposed to maintain the underlying zoning of the site but has requested a Zoning Code Text Amendment to create a new combining district that would permit residential uses in the PF Zone and test strategies for development of workforce housing. With adoption of the Ordinances in Attachment B and C to establish the workforce combining district and apply the combining district to the project site through a Zoning Map Amendment, the proposed project would comply with all applicable requirements outlined in the municipal code. The proposed ordinances are described in further detail below. Proposed Workforce Housing Combining District Ordinance The ordinance included in Attachment B establishes the new combining district and outlines the applicability, allowed use, development standards, and other requirements that would apply. As detailed in the ordinance, the workforce combining district may be applied through a Zoning Map Amendment to any PF zoned parcel within 0.5 miles of major fixed rail transit. The ordinance defines workforce housing and outlines the development standards that may be applied, in lieu of the PF district standards to proposed workforce housing projects. Key 4 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 elements development standards under this ordinance include:  No limit on dwelling unit densities (i.e. units per acre)  An allowed floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0:1  A parking ratio of one parking space per unit or bedroom count, whichever is greater. The standards also require that a robust TDM plan is prepared; this TDM plan would support this reduction from the requirements in 18.52 of the municipal code  A restriction on unit size of up to 750 square feet. The combining district also requires that any site applying these regulations in lieu of the underlying district’s regulations be required to deed restrict a minimum of 20 percent units for workforce housing as well as provide preferences for local employees. The City has defined workforce housing in this code to be multi-family residential in which at least 20 percent of the units, excluding any required below-market-rate units, are affordable to households earning more than 120 percent of AMI and up to or equal to 150 percent of AMI. This identified range for the deed restriction is consistent with California Government Code Section 65008, which defines “middle income housing” as 150 percent of the median in the County. It is also consistent with the definition of “persons and families of middle income” as defined in Assembly Bill 1637, known as the “Missing Middle Housing Act”, which was signed into law in October 2017 and is targeted at improving financing for housing projects that include an affordability component for middle income or below. Units deed restricted at 120 percent of AMI or less are considered by the City to be below market rate housing. As specified in the ordinance, projects applying the workforce housing combining district would be required to comply with the below market rate requirements for rental projects outlined in Section 16.65 of the municipal code, as applicable, in addition to the workforce housing requirements. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance To apply a new combing district to a site, a Zoning Map amendment is required. Therefore, the proposed ordinance in Attachment B would create the new combining district and the proposed ordinance in Attachment C would apply the new combining district to the subject property. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the development standards of the new combining district is included in Attachment F. Application to Future Sites Any future request for a Zoning Map Amendment to apply the combining district to a particular parcel would similarly require review by the PTC and Council approval. Based on staff’s research, there are 77 parcels that are zoned Public Facilities and located within 0.5 mile of a major fixed-rail transit station. While in theory the owners of these parcels could apply to utilize the new combining district through a Zoning Map Amendment, there are few parcels that are developable as currently used/configured. Table 1 provides a summary of the actual current use for each of these 77 parcels. A total of 43 of the 77 parcels are owned by the City of Palo Alto and, as noted below, 20 are Caltrain ROW/Caltrain station parcels. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Maps showing the location of these 77 parcels are included in Attachment G. The land use designation on these parcels is typically MISP, CC (community commercial), P (parks); however, some parcels are in the SOFA I CAP, Open Space or MF (multi-family) land use designation. Table 1: Actual Land Use for PF Zoned Parcels within 0.5 Miles of Caltrain Stations Actual Use of Parcel Total Public Parking Lot/Garage 27 Caltrain Station 3 Caltrain Right-of-way 17 City owned public building (e.g. museum, city hall, library, community center, fire station) 6 County owned public building (e.g. courthouse, office of the public defender) 2 State owned public Building (post office) 2 Park 10 Plaza 2 Other (VTA site, Ronald McDonald house, AT&T building) 3 Hospital 1 Vegetation screening/buffer area along roadway 4 Any future proposal would require discretionary approvals and would be reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act based on that proposal. Financial Analysis The subject application is not a Planned Community project and it is not subject to a public benefit requirement. However, the applicant is seeking significantly more development potential of the site than allowed under current zoning. Based on applicant testimony and prior discussions before the City Council and PTC, it is clear there is an expectation that the project would include some amount of deed restricted housing. The applicant is proposing to deed restrict 12 of the 57 units to the 140 and 150 percent County AMI levels. Additionally, the applicant states that the balance of the units will also be more affordable compared to other housing opportunities in the city because the unit sizes are smaller (averaging 530 square feet) and would command less rent. As stated in recent policy documents and community meetings, city leaders have expressed a strong interest in creating more housing units in the city. Since this project has been presented and discussed as workforce housing, staff was interested in understanding the return on cost (ROC) on the proposed project and how that might inform a discussion to maximize the number of deed restricted housing units while still being an attractive investment opportunity for the applicant. The city’s economic consultant on this project is Keyser Marston Associates (KMA). This firm has stated, based on review of survey data, that for similar developments applicants City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 would accept a ROC on their project between 3.75 and 4.50 percent; and that more often the expectation is at the higher end of this range. This is generally regarded as a low return, but it is offset by the expectation that the Palo Alto housing market will remain strong and see greater returns in subsequent years. Based on the economic analysis prepared for this project (Attachment H) the ROC for a market rate project is estimated at 4.00 percent. This analysis includes information on project construction costs, indirect costs, acquisition cost, and rental projections. Other scenarios that were considered included 100 percent deed restricted housing at 150 and 140 percent of AMI and various deed restricted housing options. The applicant’s proposed project with 12 deed restricted units was also analyzed and determined to have a 3.89 ROC. All the various analyses are included in the attachment. There are two other aspects of the financial analysis that the PTC may want to consider. One has to do with financing a development project; the developer has indicated there are constraints in financing the proposed project if more units are deed restricted or if all units are deed restricted for a period greater than approximately five years. The second consideration relates to the cost of purchasing the property, which has been currently negotiated at $7.5 million between the applicant and property owners. This land value appears very high and impacts the ROC for any development of this parcel, which in turn impacts the amount of deed restricted workforce housing that could be deed restricted in this project. Context-based Design Criteria The text for the new combining district would require compliance with the context-based design criteria for multi-family residential developments, which are outlined in PAMC Section 18.13.060. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the context-based design criteria is included in Attachment I. As detailed in the analysis, the proposed project provides appropriate transitions between adjacent uses, which are similar in nature and/or complement the proposed use. Parking is provided primarily below-grade and designed so as to avoid views of parking from the public right-of-way as well as adjacent uses. However, the project could be more consistent with criterion 1, “massing and building facades,” in that the building does not generally include windows or doorways on the ground floor that are oriented toward El Camino Real and the roof line does not accentuate significant elements of the building such as the entry. Although further design considerations could be made for greater consistency with this criterion, staff believes that the findings for consistency with this criterion can be made, as outlined in Attachment I. Therefore, staff concludes that the project, on balance, is consistent with the context-based design criteria. It is anticipated that the Architectural Review Board would provide further input regarding the project design following the PTC’s recommendation. Performance Criteria The text for the new combining district requires compliance with the performance criteria, consistent with the intent of PAMC Section 18.23.010, which requires the criteria for all developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Performance Criteria is included in Attachment J. As detailed in the analysis, the proposed project appropriately locates noise producing equipment and the refuse enclosure so as to reduce noise and vibration; provides parking below grade; improves City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access at and around the site; and provides appropriate lighting, consistent with the performance criteria. Therefore, staff concludes that the project is consistent with the Performance criteria. South El Camino Real Design Guidelines The project is subject to the requirements of the South El Camino Real and El Camino Real Design Guidelines. In addition, this site is located within the California Avenue Strategic Site Pedestrian-Oriented Node and is specifically identified as a “strategic site for implementation of the City’s vision of El Camino Real, serving as a critical anchor for extending the momentum of the California Avenue intersection down to Page Mill Road.” The guidelines note that buildings on the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real should feature a prominent corner, extensive windows, and pedestrian amenities such as canopies, seating, and planters. In addition, it states that the former VTA site, in particular, should be redeveloped with a more intensive use of the site, and that a mixed-use building with structured/subsurface parking would be desirable. The proposed project does not include a mixed-use building. However, it includes more intensive use of the site in a manner that is consistent with other City housing goals. A complete analysis of the project’s consistency with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines is included in Attachment K. On balance staff believes the project to be consistent with the El Camino Real design guidelines. However, staff noted that the following changes could improve the project’s consistency with specific sections of the guidelines:  Additional greenery (e.g. trellises) could be used to further break of massing above the porte-cochere along the interior lot line as well as above the entrance (Guidelines Section 3.3.3).  The transformer could be better screened; however, staff notes that the applicant has made significant revisions already to reduce impacts of mechanical equipment (Guidelines Section 3.3.4)  The project could have more clear definition between the base, body and roof (Guidelines Section 4.1.5)  Greater transparency could be provided along the El Camino Real façade (Guideline Section 4.3.2) Staff anticipates that consistency with the South El Camino Real Guidelines would be further explored with the Architectural Review Board following a recommendation from the PTC and prior to Council. Parking The proposed project includes 40 studio units and 17 one bedroom units. Under conventional zoning code requirements, the proposed development would require 94 parking spaces (75 parking spaces for residents [1.25 per studio and 1.5 per one-bedroom] and 19 parking spaces for guests [33 percent if parking is assigned]), which could be reduced by up to a 30 percent City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 using available adjustments, for a total of 65 spaces. The workforce housing combining district regulations would require one space per unit with ten percent guest parking. Consistent with this requirement, the applicant proposes a total of 68 parking spaces in total. Sixty-four (64) of these spaces would be used for residences and four of these spaces would be for guests. This is equivalent to 1.2 spaces per unit. During the previous study session, commissioners requested that staff and the applicant research other projects within the City of Palo Alto and nearby cities to better understand whether projects that have included lower parking ratios per unit have been successful. In particular, both members of Council and the commission were interested in whether any analysis had been conducted for the more recently occupied project within the City at 801 Alma. For reference, the 801 Alma Avenue project was a 100 percent affordable housing project with 50 units located adjacent the University Avenue Caltrain Station and for which a parking ratio of 1.2 spaces per unit was provided. Based on parking occupancy studies conducted by GreenTRIP, 1.02 parking spaces per unit are generally in use; therefore, generally, 15 percent of spaces at the site are unused. In addition, Hexagon has recently (2017) completed parking occupancy ratio counts for similar residential developments in transit, pedestrian, or bicycle oriented areas in the Peninsula to determine average peak parking occupancy rates. These counts were conducted for developments in Redwood City, Los Altos, and Foster City. The counts revealed that during peak parking times, the parking demand at these residential developments was less than one occupied space per bedroom. On average it was 0.82 spaces per bedroom and at a high it was 0.9 spaces per bedroom. Based on this ratio, the proposed project would expect a peak parking occupancy of 51 spaces. Additional information on these studies is included in the Traffic Impact Analysis, which is included as Appendix G of the Environmental Analysis in Attachment P. Based on these studies and comments received from Council, the ordinance proposes a 1:1 ratio for parking spaces per bedroom and the applicant proposes a slightly higher rate of approximately 1.2 parking spaces per unit. A map showing public transportation in the vicinity of the proposed project is provided in Attachment L. In addition, Transform, which manages the GreenTRIP certification program, has provided a conditional GreenTRIP certification for the proposed project, as shown in Attachment M. On January 23, 2017 the City adopted the Evergreen-Park Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program (RPP). 2755 El Camino Real is not included in the RPP program boundaries; therefore, residents would not be eligible to purchase permits to park in the adjacent neighborhood. However, it should be noted that residents or guests of the proposed project could park on adjacent streets in two hour increments or after 6P.M. and before 8A.M. A Map of the boundaries of the Evergreen-Park Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program (RPP) is included in Attachment N. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14 Parking Design Sixty of the vehicle spaces are provided via three individual lift systems located below-grade. The separate lift systems allow for concurrent use of the different lifts so that more than one car can park or be retrieved at a given time. PAMC Section 18.54.020(b) allows for off-street parking to be provided via a lift system when used for multi-family residential uses. The project is consistent with parking screening requirements and lift stall size requirements outlined in this section of the code. In accordance with PAMC Section 18.54.020(b)(4)(D), additional information is required to be submitted to address proposed maintenance, emergency procedures, and backup systems for the lift system. Condition of Approval 13 is included to address this requirement. Bicycle Parking A total of 57 long-term and six short-term bike parking spaces are required under the PAMC and would continue to be required with the combining district overlay. The applicant is providing 69 long-term bike parking spaces, including one cargo bicycle parking space, and sixteen short-term spaces. All bicycle parking is provided at grade. At grade bicycle parking is incorporated as a requirement in the ordinance to ensure that any future developments similarly focus on providing convenient bicycle parking. Multi-Modal Access The project proposes right-turn in/right-turn out access on El Camino Real via a drive aisle leading to four at grade parking spaces for guest parking and 64 below grade parking spaces. The proposed vehicular site access is in approximately the same location as the existing site access along El Camino Real and the curb cut at Page Mill Road would be removed. The main entrance is at grade, making it pedestrian and bicycle friendly. The applicant has proposed to dedicate for public access a portion of the existing property to the County of Santa Clara and to upgrade the curb to facilitate future improvements proposed by the County. These improvements include adding a new right-turn lane, which would help to reduce congestion at this intersection, as well as a new bicycle lane, improving safety for cyclists. Additional curb improvements are proposed at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino to tighten the curb radius, thereby allowing for more sidewalk space and calming traffic turning onto El Camino Real. This change also reduces pedestrian crossing time at this intersection. This change would not negatively affect any current or planned bicycle lanes, nor would it affect traffic patterns on El Camino, which is already wide enough to allow parking and a bus stop in front of the project site. As discussed in the TIA and shown in the project plans, the project will also improve the existing bus stop along the El Camino Real frontage, placing it slightly closer to the intersection, which is preferred by VTA. An improved bus stop bench with a shelter is also proposed by the applicant to replace the existing bus stop bench. The Traffic Impact Analysis is included as Appendix G of the environmental analysis in Attachment P. As summarized in this analysis and incorporated into the environmental analysis, the project would not have a significant impact on traffic or circulation. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15 Transit Demand Management A Draft Transit Demand Management (TDM) Program is included in Attachment O. The TDM program includes the following key components:  Caltrain GoPasses for all residents  Valley Transit Authority EcoPasses for all residents  Bicycles for resident use  Carpool Matching Sevices  Unbundled parking  Stipend ($100 monthly) to use toward transportation network companies (e.g. uber, Lyft) for those that do not own a car In addition to what is proposed in the TDM program, the City’s transportation division has included Conditions of Approval of the project outlining additional components that must be included in the TDM program. The URBEMIS model is used to analyze estimated potential trip reductions. As outlined in the TIA, a nine percent reduction in vehicle trips is assumed in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority‘s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines based on the project’s proximity to transit. As stated in the TDM plan prepared by Nelson Nygaard, the TDM plan is anticipated to reduce vehicle trips by an additional 35 percent. The local preference required in accordance with the new ordinance would likely further reduce single-occupancy vehicle use and VMT by requiring the applicant to lease to tenants based on proximity of the housing to the resident’s place of employment. Enforcement The project applicant/owner would be required to monitor vehicle trips and parking occupancy as well as conduct regular resident surveys of travel choices, in accordance with the methodology outlined in the TDM plan in Attachment O. The program would be evaluated and would include all of the TDM measures listed in this memo, to determine their effectiveness. Vehicle trip data counted would be measured against the ITE baseline as established by the Hexagon analysis in the TIA. With the required evaluation, progress of the TDM program on site can be tracked. If the TDM program is not achieving the total reduction of trips, additional and reasonable changes and new measures may be imposed, as required in accordance with the municipal code. Compliance with the TDM program would be subject to standard code enforcement regulations within the City of Palo Alto, which include penalties for non- compliance. The applicant would also be required to provide an annual report documenting conformance with the local preference for rental of units when they become vacant. Staff encourages the PTC’s input on the enforcing compliance with the TDM and local preference. Consistency with Application Findings City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16 As outlined in Attachment D, Record of Land Use Action, the project is consistent with the Site and Design Findings. As discussed above staff also finds the project to be consistent with the context based design criteria, performance criteria, and the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Although the Architectural Review Findings are not part of the PTC’s purview, a consistency analysis with these findings is also included in Attachment D for the PTC’s reference. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on January 19, 2018 and circulation ends on February 20, 2018. The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is included in Attachment P. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is included as Exhibit A in the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment D. Mitigation has been included, in particular, to reduce construction noise, to ensure the proper closure of monitoring wells on the project site; and to ensure the proper treatment of any cultural or tribal cultural resources in the unlikely event that they are found to present during construction. With the incorporation of mitigation, all impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level. It should be noted that the proposed project, as designed, would not have a significant impact on traffic circulation. However, a retail commercial or office use in this same location would command increased parking and likely result in increased single-occupancy vehicle trips to the area, which would be more impactful on traffic than the proposed project and could exceed the identified thresholds of significance. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on January 19, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing also occurred on January 19. Public Comments Twelve oral comments were received during the prescreening with Council on September 12, 2017. The minutes from the prescreening hearing include a transcript of these oral comments and can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54337. Some comments expressed support for the project primarily due to its contribution to new housing stock within the City. Comments that expressed concerns related primarily to traffic impacts, parking (both parking loss and concerns with reduced parking for the units), rezoning from a public facilities zoning, and the project’s inconsistency with the adjacent condominiums. Two additional oral comments were received during the PTC hearing on June 14, 2017 and no public comments were received during the ARB study session. Comments received during the PTC hearing are included in the transcript from the hearing at: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 17 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61559. An additional 117 written comments were received regarding the proposed project. One comment noted concerns related primarily to re-zoning of the property and parking/traffic. Two of the comments expressed general support for some of the ideas but offered advice as to other considerations that should be required as part of the proposal. The other 114 comments expressed support for the project and urged the Council to support the addition of more housing units. These written comments are included in Attachment Q. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information PTC5 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2679 claire.hodgkins@gmail.com jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Proposed Ordinance Zoning Code Text Amendment (DOCX)  Attachment C: Proposed Ordinance Zoning Map Amendment (PDF)  Attachment D: Draft Record of Land Use Action (PDF)  Attachment E: Housing Colleagues Memo (PDF)  Attachment F: WH Combining District Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment G: PF Zoned Parcels within 0.5 Mile of Fixed Rail Station (PDF)  Attachment H: Economic Analysis (PDF)  Attachment I: Context-Based Design Criteria Consistency Analysis (DOCX)  Attachment J: Performance Criteria Consistency Analysis (DOCX)  Attachment K: South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (DOCX)  Attachment L: Adjacent Public Transportation Map (PDF)  Attachment M: GreenTRIP Letter (PDF)  Attachment N: Evergreen Park Mayfield RPP Map (PDF)  Attachment O: TDM Plan (PDF)  Attachment P: Environmental Analysis (DOCX)  Attachment Q: Public Comments (PDF)  Attachment R: Project Description (PDF)  Attachment S: Project Plans (DOCX) 5 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 2 A B GRANT AVENUE SHERIDAN AVENUE PEPPER AVENUE PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REAL PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL F S3) PF CN CN PC-2293 PC-4354 PC-4463 PC- R GM CS PC-4831 CS(D) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback abc Known Structures Tree (TR) abc Zone District Notes Zone Districts Curb Edge abc Zone District Labels Project Site 0'126' 2755 El Camino Real CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2018-01-19 10:36:09 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\chodgki.mdb) Not Yet Approved DRAFT Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapter 18.30 (Combining Districts) to Add a New Subchapter 18.30(J) Creating the Workforce (WF) Combining District and Establishing Regulations The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. Housing in California is becoming increasingly unaffordable. The average California home currently costs about 2.5 times the national average home price and monthly rent is 50% higher than the rest of the nation. Rent in San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and Los Angeles are among the top 10 most unaffordable in the nation. With rising population growth, California must not only provide housing but also ensure affordability. B. Despite a high median income in Palo Alto, nearly 30 percent of all households overpaid for their housing (more than 30 percent of their income) in 2010. C. The lack of an adequate supply of housing at all levels of affordability drives up the rents and costs of ownership of housing, which has a detrimental effect upon residents who may be displaced from their community and local employees who must endure longer commutes for lack of housing opportunities near work. D. It is in the public interest that a continuum of housing be provided for a broad spectrum of persons, including those earning middle incomes or below. E. The cost of development, construction, and operation of housing projects, especially mixed-income projects, has discouraged developers from developing housing projects, impacting the ability to provide for a continuum of housing at various income levels. Allowing higher density housing, reduced parking requirements, and an increase in the allowable gross floor area in appropriate locations improves the economic feasibility of housing projects, particularly mixed-income projects. F. The resident workforce is leaving the city, and new employees are deterred by the high cost of living. The creation of additional middle-income housing would allow for the development of housing for persons who work in and serve the community in which they live. Not Yet Approved DRAFT 2 G. Encouraging the development of transit-oriented multi-family housing affordable and available to local employees and available to the local workforce supports City and State goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated greenhouse gas and other air emissions. SECTION 2. Chapter 18.30 (Combining Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new subchapter 18.30(J) to read as follows: Chapter 18.30(J) WORKFORCE HOUSING (WH) COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS 18.30(J).010 Specific Purpose The purpose of the workforce housing combining district is to incentivize development of new housing that is affordable to the local workforce. This combining district promotes the development of such housing projects located within one-half mile radius of a major fixed-rail transit stop by providing flexible development standards and modifying the uses allowed in the Public Facilities (PF) district. 18.30(J).020 Applicability of Regulations The workforce housing combining district may be combined with the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District set forth in Chapter 18.28 of this Title, in accord with Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.80, on any parcel that is located within one-half mile radius of a major fixed-rail transit stop. Where so combined, the regulations established by this Chapter shall apply for workforce housing projects in lieu of the uses allowed and development standards and procedures applied in the underlying PF district. A property owner may elect to use the parcel consistent with the underlying district, in which case the regulations in Chapter 18.28 for the PF district shall apply. 18.30(J).030 Definitions For purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply: (a) “Workforce housing” means a multi-family rental housing project in which at least twenty percent (20%) of the units, excluding any required below-market-rate units, are affordable to households earning more than 120 percent of area median income (AMI) up to and including 150 percent of AMI. 18.30(J). 040 Zoning Map Designation The workforce housing combining district shall apply to properties designated on the zoning map by the symbol “WH” within parentheses, following the public facilities (PF) district designation with which it is combined. Not Yet Approved DRAFT 3 18.30(J).050 Site Development Review Process All projects shall be subject to architectural review as provided in Section 18.76.020 except that projects proposing nine units or more shall be subject to site and design review under Chapter 18.30(G). 18.30(J).060 Permitted Uses (a) The following uses shall be permitted in the WH combining district: (1) Workforce housing, including incidental retail and community space (2) All other uses permitted in the underlying district, subject to the development standards for the underlying district. (b) The uses in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) above shall not be used in combination. 18.30(J).070 Development Standards (a) Where the WH combining district is combined with the public facilities district, the following development standards for workforce housing, including permitted incidental uses, shall apply in lieu of the development standards for the underlying PF zoning district: Table 1 Development Standards WH Combining District Minimum Site Specifications Subject to regulations in: Site Area (ft) None required Site Width (ft) Site Depth (ft) Minimum Setbacks Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code may apply Front Yard (ft) Subject to decisionmaking body (1) Rear Yard (ft) 10’(2) Interior Side Yard 5’(2) Not Yet Approved DRAFT 4 Interior Side Yard if abutting residential zoning district (ft) (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) 10' Street Side Yard (ft) Subject to decisionmaking body (1) Maximum Site Coverage None Required Landscape/Open Space Coverage 20% (3) Usable Open Space(4) 75 square feet (sf) per unit Maximum Height (ft) Standard 50’ Within 50 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) 50’, except as limited by applicable daylight plane requirements Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line Maximum Residential Density (net) None Required Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – Residential-Only or Mixed Use Projects 2.0:1 Maximum Unit Size 750 sf Vehicle Parking Parking requirements shall be no less than one space per unit or bedroom, whichever is greater. The decisionmaking body may reduce this standard based on a parking study. Any incidental retail shall be subject to the parking requirements outlined in Section 18.52. Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking requirements shall be in accordance with Section18.52.040. All bicycle parking must be provided at grade. TDM Plan A transportation demand management (TDM) plan shall be required and shall comply with the TDM pursuant to Section 18.52.050(d) and associated administrative guidelines. Not Yet Approved DRAFT 5 Notes: 1. A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. 2. In order to encourage below-grade parking, garage ramps and subterranean structures may encroach into the required setback provided that sufficient landscaping is still provided between the project site and adjacent properties. 3. Landscape/Open space may be any combination of landscaping or private and common open spaces. 4. Useable open space includes a combination of common and private open space. (b) These developments shall be subject to the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23, as well as the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.13.090 for residential projects, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the Director, pursuant to Section 18.76.020 18.30(J).090 Additional WH Combining District Regulations (a) Affordability Requirement. At least 20 percent of the units in a workforce housing project, excluding any required below-market-rate units, shall be affordable to households earning more than 120 percent of area median income (AMI) up to and including 150 percent of AMI. (b) BMR Provisions Applicable. The Below Market Rate Housing requirements set forth in Chapter 16.65 of Title 16 of this Code shall apply to workforce housing projects. Any BMR units provided will not be counted toward the total number of units in a workforce housing project for purposes of calculating the number of workforce affordable units required under subsection (a) above. (c) Continued Affordability. All workforce housing units provided under subsection (a) above shall be subject to a deed of trust or regulatory agreement recorded against the property for execution by the City Manager in a form approved by the City Attorney, to ensure the continued affordability of the workforce housing units. All workforce housing units shall remain affordable to the targeted income group for 99 years. (d) Local Workforce Preference. All residential units within a workforce housing project shall be offered first to eligible households with at least one household member whose place of employment is within one mile of the housing project site. If units remain unoccupied after offers are made to this first category, those units shall be offered to eligible households with at least one household member whose place of employment is within three miles of the housing project site. If units remain unoccupied after offers are made to this second category, those units shall be offered to eligible households with at least one household member whose place of employment is within one-half mile of a major fixed-rail transit stop. Not Yet Approved DRAFT 6 SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 4. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the environmental impacts of this Ordinance were evaluated in a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2755 El Camino Real Multi-family Residential Project (MND)(SCH# 2018012024), which the Council considered and adopted, together with the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) on _________, 2018. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded, and the Council finds consistent therewith, that the proposed ordinance would not have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation as proposed and adopted. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Not Yet Approved DRAFT 7 Director of Planning and Community Environment Not Yet Approved Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto for Approximately 0.49 Acres at 2755 El Camino Real to Add the Workforce Housing (WH) Combining District to the Existing Public Facilities (PF) Zoning District The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A.The Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on January 31, 2018, at which it reviewed, considered, and recommended Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) be amended to rezone that certain real property fronting El Camino Real and Page Mill Road (commonly known as 2755 El Camino Real and more particularly described in Exhibit 1) to add the Workforce Housing (WH) Combining District. B.The Council held a duly noticed public hearing on ________, 2018, and considered the subject amendment of the Zoning Map, including the recommendation by staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission and all public comments received prior to or at the hearing. C.The proposed Ordinance promotes the development of housing in a transit- oriented area close to jobs and services, in accordance with the goals and policies in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Code. D.The environmental impacts of the subject amendment of the Zoning Map was evaluated in a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the ____________ Project (MND), which the Council considered and adopted, together with the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), on _____________, 2018, prior to taking action on this ordinance. SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended by adding the Workforce Housing (WH) combining district to all that real property situated in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described in Exhibit 1 (Legal Description and Map) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and commonly known as 2755 El Camino Real SECTION 3. Based on the MND and the administrative record as a whole, the City Council hereby finds that this rezoning will have no significant effect on the environment. Not Yet Approved 2 SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment 20 4 10 35 10 B 2700 2675 423 433 441 471 461 451 42805 2865 2875 2755 2780 410 469 450 2701 435 2700 481 601 2790 2798 2705 2825 425 SHERIDAN AVENUE PAGE M ILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REALEL C AMINO REAL EL CA MINO REAL This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Building Roof Outline Tree Parcel to be rezoned to PF (WH) 0'100' Exhibit 1:2755 El Camino Real Proposed Zone Change from PF to PF (WH) CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2018-01-22 14:50:012755 ECR Zoning Map Amendment Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\chodgki.mdb) Attachment C APPROVAL NO. 2018-__ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 2755 EL CAMINO REAL: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN [FILE NO 16PLN-00434] On ___________, 2017, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as well as the Site and Design Review to allow construction of a multi-family residential housing building totaling 39,158 square feet (sf) with both below and at-grade parking located at 2755 El Camino Real making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On December 23, 2016, Windy Hill Property Venture applied for a Site and Design review [16PLN-00464] for the development of an exclusively multi-family residential building on a 0.449 acre parcel (APN 132-36-084) to replace a vacant parking lot formerly used by the Valley Transit Authority (VTA) as a park- and-ride lot. Surrounding uses include office, retail, public recreation (soccer fields), and multi-family residential housing primarily in areas Zoned Planned Community (PC). B. Staff has determined that, with adoption of the Ordinance in Attachment B, which creates a new Workforce Housing Combining District under 18.30(J) and applies that combining district to the project site at 2755 El Camino Real through a Zoning Map Amendment, the proposed project is in compliance with the applicable development standards of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the MND, approval of the MMRP, and approval of the Site and Design on January 31, 2017 subject to conditions of approval. D. Following staff and Planning and Transportation Commission review the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the MND, approval of the MMRP on ________, 2018 subject to conditions of approval. E. On ________, 2018, the City Council reviewed the project design and the MND and MMRP. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to approve the Site and Design subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan approved by the City Council on _________, 2018. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation as proposed. The MND is available for review in Attachment N and all mitigation measures as stated in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The MMRP is included in Exhibit A of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 3. SITE AND DESIGN OBJECTIVE FINDINGS. The project is consistent with the Site and Design Objective Findings outlined in Chapter 18.30(G).060 of the PAMC. Objective (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. Surrounding uses immediately adjacent to the site include a high density multi-family residential condominium complex and a high density senior living facility both zoned Planned Community (PC). Other nearby uses across Page Mill Road and El Camino Real include soccer fields as well as office and retail uses, including Palo Alto Square and the nearby Stanford Research Park, both of which provide extensive job opportunities within the City of Palo Alto. The project site is also located within close proximity (200 feet or less) of extensive bus services provided primarily by the Valley Transit Authority (VTA) as well as within 0.5 miles of the California Avenue Caltrain Station. The proposed project is consistent with Objective A because it provides high density housing in an area adjacent similar high density uses as well as in close proximity to transit opportunities, services, and job opportunities, consistent with several goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Use of this transit- oriented site for multi-family residential housing with lower parking requirements reduces anticipated traffic that would be generated from most other potential uses of the site such as office or retail. Given the high volume of traffic at this intersection and high density uses surrounding the site, this use would be very compatible with other adjacent uses. In addition, most parking is provided below ground and vegetation screening space is provided between the project and adjacent sites. The project also dedicates land needed by the County of Santa Clara to develop a long-sought right-hand turn lane from Page Mill Road onto El Camino Real and a potential future bike lane along Page Mill Road. Revisions to the curb along El Camino Real and Page Mill would also create a tighter turn radius to slow traffic turning onto El Camino Real and provide more sidewalk area, making the intersection safer for pedestrians. The street trees, wider sidewalk area, vegetation planting on-site, and improved bus stop also improve the pedestrian experience at this corner. The building also activates this corner, a long-sought goal in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines for the continuation of the pedestrian experience between pedestrian nodes and corridors. Therefore, construction and operation of the use would be in a manner that is orderly, harmonious and compatible with existing developed uses of adjoining and nearby sites. Objective (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. As currently zoned, the project site has limited uses and the site continues to be used as a vacant parking lot for surplus parking. High density multi-family housing in close proximity to existing business would generate greater use of retail services and provide opportunities for nearby office employees to live in close proximity to work, ensuring the desirability of investment, conduct of business and research in adjacent areas. Further, workforce housing, as proposed by the applicant, provides an opportunity for more affordable housing for those that would typically have to live and spend money in nearby cities with more affordable housing opportunities. Objective (c): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The proposed project is consistent with Objective C in that the project situates housing in a location close to extensive transit opportunities as well as adjacent retail and office uses, which helps to reduce vehicle miles traveled from the project site. An extensive Transit Demand Management plan also encourages increased transit use, providing VTA EcoPasses and the Caltain GoPass to all residents, as well as a bike share program, carpool matching services, and other services. It includes reduced parking that is unbundled, in order to discourage residents from having more than one vehicle, again reducing overall vehicle miles traveled to and from the project site. The building is also designed to comply with Calgreen Tier 2 requirements and includes drought resistant, low water-use plantings. The project will comply with C3 and MWELO requirements. Although several trees on site are planned to be removed, more trees will be added. None of the trees planned for removal are protected. Objective (d): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is consistent with Objective D because the project promotes medium density residential development within the El Camino Real corridor and areas in close proximity to transit. As outlined in Table 1 below, the project is consistent with several policies and goals outlined in the Housing Element, Natural Element, Land Use and Design Element, and Transportation Element. With implementation of conditions of approval, which require design features to reduce exposure to air contaminants from the California-Olive-Emerson plume and air contaminants from vehicles and generators on El Camino Real, the project would be consistent with Policy N-5.4, which requires that toxic air contaminants be mitigated. Therefore, the proposed use of the site, with the conditions of approval, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Table 1: Comprehensive Plan Analysis Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Major Institution/Special Facilities (MISP) In accordance with the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Update, appropriate land uses in the MISP designation include higher density multi-family residential uses in some locations, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers. The proposed development includes a high density multi- family residential use on a site zoned MISP that is located in close proximity to extensive VTA transit opportunities and within 0.5 mile of a Caltrain station stop. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this land use designation. Housing Element Policy H2.1: Identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed-income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse. The proposed municipal code ordinance included as part of the project would eliminate the maximum housing density requirement for projects on PF zoned parcels within specific transit oriented areas. The proposed development includes 57 smaller units in a transit rich area with nearby community services. It also includes a workforce housing component which would make at least some of the units more affordable to residents. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Program H2.1.1: To allow for higher density residential development, consider amending the zoning code to permit high-density residential in mixed-use or single use projects in commercial areas within one-half a mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Element Sites within one- quarter mile of fixed rail stations The project includes an amendment to the zoning code to permit high density residential on PF Zoned properties within 0.5 mile of fixed rail transit. Although the underlying zoning is required to be PF and this ordinance is not proposed to be extended to commercially zoned properties, sites within 0.5 mile of fixed rail transit within the City of Palo Alto generally already include commercial services within the vicinity. Therefore, the project is consistent with this program. Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available The project allows for increased residential densities in close proximity to urban services and amenities. Although the project would be Program H2.1.4: Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including units for seniors, such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet and other flexible development standards. The proposed project eliminates maximum density requirements for exclusively residential projects in some areas while still limiting FAR and height in order to encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units. Other flexible development standards include such things as reduced parking requirements in comparison to current standards and more flexibility in setbacks based on adjacent uses. Program H2.1.10: As part of planning for the future of El Camino Real, explore the identification of pedestrian nodes consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines, with greater densities in these nodes than in other areas. The project is located in one of the key nodes identified in the South El Camino Real design guidelines as a target area for improving pedestrian connections and increasing pedestrian activity. This would look at a higher density in this node than in other areas, consistent with this policy. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-1.1: Limit future Urban development to currently development lands within the urban service area. The proposed project includes urban development for a desired use within the city within the urban service area. Policy L-1.5: Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change and development to benefit the community. The project encourages the development of multi-family housing units that are smaller and that include a workforce housing component in order to make housing more affordable. More affordable housing addresses a need of the community. The project, including the ordinance and the development, is also designed to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use, a benefit to the community. Policy L-2.3: As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes designed for a greater affordability, particularly smaller housing types, such as studios, cottages, clustered housing… The proposed project includes smaller, and therefore presumably more affordable, units. Although this housing time may not be desirable to all types of residents, it includes housing sought by some demographics, for example, young tech workers that may be employed nearby at Stanford Research Park. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. Program L2.4.7: Explore mechanisms for increasing multi-family housing density near multi-modal transit centers. Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. The project is a mechanism for increasing multi-family housing near multi-modal transit centers. Although the project as proposed does not include a preference to specific employees, it includes housing units offered at lower than market rate prices and includes preference for local employees or students. Policy L-3.4: Ensure that new multi-family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public street. The proposed development includes an entry located on the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, activating the corner in a manner consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The planned outdoor space also increases eyes on the street. Policy L-4.13: Recognize El Camino Real as both a local serving and regional serving corridor, defined by a mix of commercial uses and housing. The project includes proposed housing in an area with extensive service and office uses along El Camino Real. Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The project is located in an area with adjacent, similar, high density residential uses as well as extensive services and employment opportunities. The project includes landscape screening between uses and is oriented toward the street with parking provided below ground or behind the building. Therefore the project is compatible with surrounding development. Policy L-9.2: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible…encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to paring while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand. The project creatively integrates parking by providing it primarily underground, with a few at-grade parking spaces provided for guest use behind the building. The project looks at appropriate parking requirements based on the use and encourages the minimization of parking in transit-oriented areas, offering a robust TDM program and methods to both discourage use of a car while encouraging use of alternate transportation. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. Transportation Element Policy T-1.3: Reduce GHG and pollutant emissions associated with transportation by reducing VMT and per-mile emissions through increasing transit options and through the use of zero-emission vehicle technologies to meet City and State goals for GHG reductions by 2030. The proposed project encourages transit-oriented development and preference to local employees/students/retired individuals to reduce overall vehicle miles traveled. Policy T-1.9: Continue to encourage the provisions of amenities such as seating, lighting and signage, including real-time arrival information, at bus and shuttle stops and train stations to increase rider comfort, safety and convenience. The project includes improvements to the existing bus VTA bus stop in front of the project site. Policy T1.19.1: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. The proposed development encourages and supports bicycling and walking by providing housing in a transit oriented location close to nearby services and employment. It also includes both long-term and short- term bicycle parking that is provided at grade and includes a robust TDM plan that includes transit passes and other methods to encourage alternative methods of transportation. Policy T-3.11: Consider the objectives of the Grand Boulevard Initiative and the South El Camino Boulevard Design Guidelines when designing roadway and pedestrian improvements along El Camino Real. The proposed project includes increased street trees, wider sidewalks, a tighter curb radius, and overall activates the corner in a manner that is consistent with specific goals outlined in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines for this specific site. The above mentioned right-of-way improvements are called out as encouraged improvements the Green Boulevard initiative and the South ECR Guidelines. Therefore, the project is consistent with these policies. Policy T-5.1: All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on-street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, paring requirements for new construction should decrease. Program T5.1.1: Evaluate the need to update parking standards in the municipal code, based on local conditions, different user’s needs and baseline parking need. Allow the use of parking lifts for office/R&D and multi-family housing as appropriate. Program T5.1.4: Study the feasibility of unbundled parking for…multi-family residential developments that are well-served by transit and demonstrated walking and bicycle connections Based on research of other similar projects in the region, including one within the City of Palo Alto transit oriented development is demanding lower parking requirements than those currently identified by the City of Palo Alto. The proposed project includes reduced parking requirements that are still projected to be higher than the actual project need. The project includes unbundled parking in order to further discourage residents from owning a vehicle and encourage their use of provided, free transit services. Program T6.6.6: Improve pedestrian crossings by creating protected areas and better pedestrian and traffic visibility. Use a toolbox including blub outs, small curb radii, high visibility crosswalks and landscaping. The project includes improvements to the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road the provide for more visibility for pedestrians while also serving to calm traffic turning onto El Camino Real from Page Mill Road. Therefore, the project is consistent with this program. Natural Environment Element Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety. The project is required to comply with the all public works engineering requirements with respect to soil management prior to and during construction to ensure that stormwater runoff does not degrade water quality in the area. Policy N-21: Reduce pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD FINDINGS. The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: As detailed above under Objective D of the Site and Design Findings, the proposed project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element emphasizes the need to explore and implement strategies that increase housing densities in close proximity to services as well as in close proximity to transit. The Housing Element also encourages amendments to the zoning code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet. The proposed project includes smaller units, a workforce housing component, and reduced parking requirements with unbundled parking, all of which serve to make units more affordable and available to local workers. The proposed project requires Zoning Code Text Amendments to create a new combining district as well as a Zoning Map Amendment to apply that combining district to the project site as detailed in the staff report. With adoption of the ordinance in Attachment B, the proposed project would be consistent with the zoning code. There are no coordinated area plans that encompass the project site. The proposed project is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, the performance criteria in PAMC Section 18.23 and the context-based design criteria for multi-family housing. Although not a requirement, the project is also consistent with recommendations outlined in the Grand Boulevard Initiative for development along El Camino Real, an initiative led by Caltrans. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The proposed development activates a high-visibility corner of the City within an identified transit-oriented pedestrian node along El Camino Real, converting a completely paved parking lot to a high-density multi-family residential use and thereby enhancing living conditions on the site. The proposed development includes a four- story building with 57 units. Adjacent uses include high density residential condominiums and senior living complexes that are zoned PC. These are three and four stories high, respectively, and therefore similar in height to the proposed development. Across El Camino and Page Mill the Palo Alto Square Complex is ten stories in height. Landscape screening is provided between adjacent uses and above grade portions of the building are set back approximately 20 feet or more in most locations from the adjacent development. Therefore, the proposed project provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land sues and land use designations. The existing conditions on site include some non-native species of trees that would be replaced with lower water use trees and landscaping. As discussed above, outlined in the staff report, and detailed in Attachment I, the proposed project is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zoning district. The design of the proposed project also creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that it includes increased perimeter landscaping along the street and interior lot lines, activates the corner with a clearly defined entrance, provides extensive at grade bicycle parking to encourage bicycle use, and provides for housing close to transit, services and job opportunities. Although the total amount of open space is lower than what is typically required, the space provided is quality and appropriate for the site, based on its location. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The design is of high aesthetic quality, utilizing quality materials and incorporating greenery, where appropriate to reduce massing. The colors are not bright, in accordance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and the main entry, sidewalks, and landscaping reinforce the pedestrian scale of the project. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site as discussed further under criteria #2. Construction techniques avoid the use of pile driving, opting for less noise alternatives to construction of the below-grade parking, as discussed further in the environmental analysis. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The proposed project design is functional and allows for ease and safety of vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Specifically the project includes all bicycle parking at grade and includes shared bicycles for resident’s use. In addition, the project includes pedestrian friendly features such as wider sidewalks and a tighter curb radius at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino, which provide better safety and visibility for pedestrians. It also includes a TDM program to incentivize use of transit and makes improvements to a bus stop currently located at the site. The property includes vehicle access to the site in the same location it is currently provided. As outlined in the Traffic Impact Analysis, this location is appropriate to ensure the safe circulation of vehicles entering and exiting onto El Camino Real. Most parking is provided below grade and lift system parking has been provided in three separate systems to allow for multiple cars to be accessed simultaneously. The open space is proposed in a manner that helps to reduce massing and increases eyes on the street. Specific signage is not proposed as part of the project; however, the proposed concept for signage shows that it would be pedestrian oriented. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The building materials, textures and colors are complimentary to the environmental setting and the landscape design utilizes drought tolerant and native plants that are appropriate to the site. All of the plant material proposed will be drought tolerant and locally adaptive to the region. The planting plan will comply with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and water budget, to include MAWA and ETWU calculations. Native species will be included and used appropriately as well as a few non-native species to reflect suitable site conditions and hydrozones. The extensive number of proposed trees would provide desirable habitat for avian species as well as screening in desired locations on site. Low waste, drip irrigation for shrub planting and bubblers for trees will be the standard of care for irrigation procedures Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. The project will use low water-use, drought resistant plants and will comply with C3 and MWELO requirements. SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "2755 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California,” stamped as received by the City on November 27, 2017 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If, during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in such document. 6. WORKFORCE HOUSING: The applicant shall lease 10 percent of the units, for a total of six (6) units, at 140% of Area Median Income (AMI) and shall lease 10 percent of the units, for a total of six (6) units, at 150% of AMI. As required in accordance with the 18.30(J).090, all workforce housing units provided shall be subject to a deed of trust, and/or regulatory agreement recorded against the property for execution by the City Manager in a form approved by the City Attorney, to ensure the continued affordability of the workforce housing units. All workforce housing units shall remain affordable to the targeted income group for 99 years. 7. ENFORCEMENT OF WORKFORCE HOUSING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCAL PREFERENCE: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant and the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall agree to a process for monitoring, reporting, and validating workforce housing obligation in compliance with Condition of Approval 6 as well as the preferential leasing requirements, as required in compliance with the workforce housing combining district ordinance. The applicant shall monitor and report on these requirements, as agreed upon, annually for no less than five years. After three (5) years of successful monitoring, the applicant may request, in writing, from the Director of Planning and Community Environment a modified reporting schedule for compliance. 8. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT: The applicant shall implement the approved TDM plan in order to achieve the goal of reducing motor vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 35%. As outlined in the plan, the applicant shall submit monitoring reports to the Transportation Division to show compliance. Where the monitoring reports indicate that performance measures are not met, the director may require program modifications and may impose administrative penalties if identified deficiencies are not addressed within six months. 9. PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE: Failure to meet any code requirements or conditions of approval of this project shall result in non-compliance and are subject to the City of Palo Alto’s Administrative Penalty Schedule. 10. TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: To comply with Comprehensive Plan Policy N-5.4 the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce exposure of proposed residences to toxic air contaminants emissions from vehicles on El Camino Real: a. Submit to the City of Palo Alto a ventilation proposal prepared by a licensed design professional for all on-site buildings that describes the ventilation design and how that design ensures all dwelling units would be below the excess cancer risk level of 10 in one million established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. b. If the proposed buildings would use operable windows or other sources of infiltration of ambient air, the development shall install a central HVAC system that includes high efficiency particulate filters (a MERV rating of 13 or higher). These types of filters are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system. The system may also include a carbon filter to remove other chemical matter. Filtration systems must operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent entrainment of outdoor air indoors. c. If the development limits infiltration through non-operable windows, a suitable ventilation system shall include a ventilation system with filtration specifications equivalent to or better than the following: (1) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers MERV-13 supply air filters, (2) greater than or equal to one air exchanges per hour of fresh outside filtered air, (3) greater than or equal to four air exchanges per hour recirculation, and (4) less than or equal to 0.25 air exchanges per hour in unfiltered infiltration. These types of filtration methods are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system. d. Windows and doors shall be fully weatherproofed with caulking and weather-stripping that is rated to last at least 20 years. Weatherproof should be maintained and replaced by the property owner, as necessary, to ensure functionality for the lifetime of the project e. Where appropriate, install passive (drop-in) electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph) f. Ensure an ongoing maintenance plan for the HVAC and filtration systems. Manufacturers of these types of filters recommend that they be replaced after two to three months of use. g. The applicant shall inform occupants regarding the proper use of any installed air filtration system. 11. VAPOR MITIGATION SYSTEM: The developer shall comply with the recommendations in the final RMP prepared by ICES (ICES 2014; included in Appendix E of this Initial Study) to mitigate vapor intrusion and reduce exposure to future occupants. These include: a. Installation of a vapor membrane system that envelops the below grade portion of the proposed building, including areas below and above the groundwater table. b. Design and operation of the HVAC system to control air flows from sub-grade parking levels upward into occupied levels. c. Ventilation of the sub-grade parking level with a fan triggered by CO sensors d. Maintaining a positive pressure in the residential space relative to the sub-grade parking levels e. Design and build elevator hoistways within the building to have air relief vents f. Conduct post-construction Indoor Air Monitoring, quarterly for a minimum of two years with potential to reduce frequency to semi-annually following the initial two years 12. GUEST PARKING: Parking shall be unbundled from the rental price of the units, as outlined in the TDM Program. Lift parking shall be designed to accommodate at least two guest parking spaces. 13. LIFT SYSTEM: The applicant shall submit an analysis and report, prepared by a qualified professional, for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment that demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed parking lift system with respect to operational details, regular and emergency maintenance schedule, and procedures and backup systems prior to building permit issuance. 14. NOISE: In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.040 no person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 15. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 16. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $1,235,900; Residential In-lieu fees in the amount of $602,920.00; plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 17. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 18. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. 19. The applicant shall include an offer of dedication for a public access easement for the additional dimension of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building edge that meets the El Camino Real Master Plan requirements. 20. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 21. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 22. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 23. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 24. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. 25. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right- of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 26. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 27. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the grading or building permit issuance. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 28. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007 California Building Code Chapter 33 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk.” 29. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. 30. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project is required. Caltrans right-of-way across El Camino Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans that requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work Permits for work done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and permit new ingress/egress driveways off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control devices as part of this project. 31. Applicant shall submit a copy from Caltrans and Santa Clara County for the work proposed within their right- of-way, prior to issuance of a City permit. 32. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. However, based on coordination with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), none of these wells are actively used for monitoring. Plot and label the wells on the plans and identify wells to be removed. Removal of these wells shall be done in coordination with the RWQCB and the SCVWD. Destruction of these wells shall be implemented by a qualified contractor and the applicant, owner, or designee shall file and obtain the required well destruction permits from the SCVWD for well destruction and provide evidence of said permits to PWE prior to Building permit issuance. 33. Where applicable, please call out the City standard detail number (i.e. “Palo Alto City Standard Detail 313 – Storm Manhole”), and include a sheet with all applicable City standard details in the plan set. 34. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 35. STORM DRAIN LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to Matadero Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the directions to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. For any new public catch basins in the public road right-of-way, applicant shall place medallions next to the inlets. Medallions are also available from Environmental Compliance Division. 36. Please provide VTA’s approval of proposed bus stop relocation on El Camino Real. PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES DIVISION 37. Proper clearance for the transformer, including 3 feet on each side and 8 feet at the front shall be provided. The plans shall be revised accordingly. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 38. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. 39. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b. TREE REMOVAL OR PLANTING—PROTECTED & RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES. Existing trees (Publicly-owned or Protected) to be removed, as shown accurately located on all site plans, require authorization by a Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit prior to issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit. This will also be referenced in a separate Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. Complete the applicant information portion, and sign the Public Tree Care Permit for planting of a new street tree. Submit via email or over the counter at the Development Center with an 8 ½” x 11” copy of the site plan for our records – this may be completed at building permit stage. Find the application here: http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/. c. ADD PLAN NOTE. For each tree to be removed or planted that states, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # _____________(contractor to complete) separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650-496-5953).” 40. NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES—PERFORMANCE MEASURES. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut. a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Landscape Plan tree planting shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and using Standard Planting Dwg. #604a, and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. Wooden cross-brace is prohibited. c. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” d. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. e. Automatic irrigation bubblers shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513a shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. 41. NEW TREES—SOIL VOLUME. Unless otherwise approved, new right-of-way trees each new tree shall be provided with a minimum volume of rootable soil area. Rootable soil shall mean compaction of less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas except when mitigated. For trees in narrow parking lot islands, sidewalk or asphalt areas, mitigation may use an Alternative Base Material underlayment [in lieu of compacted base rock] method such as structural grid (Silva Cell) or engineered soil mix (ESM). Design and manufacturer details shall be added to relevant civil and landscape sheets. Note: this expectation requires coordination with the engineer, arborist and landscape architect. 42. SPECIAL PLAN NOTES: In addition to showing TPZ fencing, add the following Notes on the specified Plan Sheets. a. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. b. Note #2. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496-5953) for any work on Public Trees” DURING CONSTRUCTION 43. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section (derek.sproat@cityofpaloalto.org). The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 44. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 45. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, (David L. Babby, arborresources@comcast.net), or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 46. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 47. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 48. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 49. URBAN FORESTRY DIGITAL FILE & INSPECTION. The applicant or architect shall provide a digital file of the landscape plan, including new off-site trees in the publicly owned right-of-way. A USB Flash Drive, with CAD or other files that show species, size and exact scaled location of each tree on public property, shall be delivered to Urban Forestry at a tree and landscape inspection scheduled by Urban Forestry (650-496-5953). 50. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 51. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. 52. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 53. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Building Division The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.: 54. On the ground floor, the emergency escape for dwelling unit occupants with bedrooms facing the interior court will travel through the driveway tunnel. This will be allowed with the conditions that the tunnel is open on three sides to allow the escape of smoke and gases and is sprinklered and is built with fire-resistive construction consistent for an exit passage. The applicant will submit an Alternate Methods and Material application for the above conditions to the Building Division for review and approval. 55. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. Watershed Protection Division The following conditions are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.: 56. DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER: The project is located in an area of suspected or known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering (PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040): Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598. Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain system or creeks. If the concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits for discharge to the storm drain system then an Exceptional Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system must be free of sediment. 57. CARWASH: In accordance with PAMC 16.09.180(b)(11) New Multi-family residential units and residential development projects with 25 or more units shall provide a covered area for occupants to wash their vehicles. A drain shall be installed to capture all vehicle wash waters and shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every six months or more frequently if recommended by the manufacturer or the Superintendent. Oil/water separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. The area shall be graded or bermed in such a manner as to prevent the discharge of storm water to the sanitary sewer system. This requirement can be exempted if no washing is allowed on-site via rental/lease agreement and any hose bibs must be fitted with lock-outs or other connections controls and signage indicating that car washing is not allowed. 58. UNPOLLUTED WATER: Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system (PAMC 16.09.055). And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k) 59. COVERED PARKING: Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system (PAMC 16.09.180[b][9]) 60. ARCHITECTURAL COPPER: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) on and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 61. CONDENSATE FROM HVAC: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 62. COPPER PIPING: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 63. MERCURY SWITCHES: Per 16.09.180(12) Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 64. COOLING SYSTEMS, POOLS, SPAS, FOUNTAINS, BOILERS and HEAT EXCHANGERS: Per PAMC 16.09.205(a) It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 65. Storm Drain Labeling: Per PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent. UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 66. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 67. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 68. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 69. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 70. The applicant's engineer may require submitting flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 71. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 72. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 73. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 74. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 75. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 76. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 77. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 78. A new water service line installation for domestic usage may require. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 79. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 80. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 81. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities’ standard details. 82. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans 83. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 84. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs for condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City”. 85. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW Utilities’ procedures. 86. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters unless otherwise reviewed and approved by CPAU. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees unless otherwise approved by CPAU. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. Applicant’s engineer to provide profile drawings for all proposed WGW utility services/lateral crossing other existing utilities mains/services. 87. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 88. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 89. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 90. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Santa Clara county department of transportation for all utility work in the county road right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 91. The applicant shall obtain a construction permit from Santa Clara county valley water district if required for the utility service line to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. GREEN BUILDING 92. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code Mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must provide a preliminary GB-1 sheet for planning entitlement approval. Submittal requirements are outlined on the Development Services Green Building Compliance webpage. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. 93. EVSE Transformer Location: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements in Part B of these comments, then applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Planning Application. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. Local Energy Reach Code for Residential Projects 94. Energy Efficiency Option 1: No Photovoltaic System. If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential and multi-family residential, non-residential construction, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed new-single family residential or multi-family construction is at least: 10 percent less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building does not include a photovoltaic system. (Ord. 5383 § 1 (part), 2016) Green Building Requirements for Residential Projects 95. CALGREEN CHECKLIST: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code Mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third- party green building inspection process. The project must select from the City’s list of approved inspectors found on the Green Building Compliance Webpage. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2013 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. 96. MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: If the new residential development project has an aggregate (combined) landscape area equal to or greater than 500 square feet, the project is subject to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) and the project will require a separate permit for Outdoor Water Efficiency. See Outdoor Water Efficiency Submittal Guidelines and permit instructions at the following link. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/outdoor_water_efficiency_.asp 97. RECYCLED WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LANDSCAPE: If the project is either a new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. If the project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 98. CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION: For residential construction projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 requirements, the project must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at 80% construction waste reduction. PAMC 16.14.260 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. https://www.greenhalosystems.com 99. EVSE: If the project is a new multifamily residential project, then the project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Green Building Ordinance 5393. For resident parking, the project must supply one EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed for each residential unit in the structure. For guest parking, the project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of the guest parking, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE installed. See PAMC 16.14.420 for definitions on the types of EVSE parking. (Ord. 5393 § 2, 2016). 100. EVSE: If the project is a new multifamily residential project, with attached parking, then the project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Green Building Ordinance 5393. For resident parking, the project must supply one Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed for each newly constructed residence in a multi-family residential structure featuring (1) a parking space attached to the residence and (2) a shared electrical panel between the residence and parking space (e.g. a multi-family structure with tuck-under garages). See PAMC 16.14.420 for definitions on the types of EVSE parking. (Ord. 5393 § 2, 2016) 101. EVSE TRANSFORMER LOCATION: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements, then the applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Permit Plans. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. SECTION 6. Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the Site and Design approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM PROJECT NAME 2755 El Camino Real Multi-family Residential Project APPLICATION NUMBER 16PLN-00464 APPLICANT Windy Hill Property Ventures (Tod Spieker) 530 Emerson Street, Suite 150 Palo Alto, CA 94301 DATE January 19, 2018 The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2755 El Camino Real Multi-family Residential Project identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, “... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1: Nesting Bird Protection Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Construction of the project and any other site disturbing activities that would involve vegetation or tree removal, shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and structure demolition. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and February 1. Applicant or designee/Construction contractor Prior to and during Construction CPA Planning Department CULTURAL RESOURCES CR-1: Resource Recovery Procedures Resource Recovery Procedures. In the event that archaeological or paleontological resources are unearthed during project construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist or paleontologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. A Native American representative shall be retained to monitor any mitigation work associated with Native American cultural material. Applicant or designee/Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department CR-2: Human Remains Recovery Procedures Human Remains Recovery Procedures. If human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition Applicant or designee/Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 3 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission. TCR-1: Unanticipated Discovery Procedures Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted. If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative. Applicant or designee/Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1: Geotechnical Design Considerations Geotechnical Design Considerations. The project applicant shall implement all measures and recommendations set forth in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc. in January 2013. These include but are not limited to:  Foundation design (mat foundation, basement water proofing, lateral loads, and settlement)  Foundation hold down anchors  Basement walls  Slabs-on-grade (general slab considerations and exterior flatwork) Earthwork (clearing and subgrade preparation, material for fill, temporary slopes and excavations, basement excavation support, temporary dewatering for basement excavation, surface drainage, and compaction) Applicant or designee/Construction contractor Prior to issuance of the grading permit; shall be shown on the building permit CPA Public Works Department HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ-1 Construction Risk Management Mitigation Construction Risk Management Mitigation. The developer shall comply with the recommendations and tasks in the final RMP prepared by ICES (ICES 2014; included in Appendix E of this Initial Applicant or designee/Construction Contractor Prior to building permit and during Construction CPA Planning Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 4 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Study) to reduce exposure of construction workers and surrounding receptors to contaminated on-site soil, groundwater and soil vapor during development. The developer shall:  Develop a Site Health and Safety Plan that includes provisions to monitor and protect construction workers from benzene or TCE-contaminated soil vapor exposure;  Develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for construction to prevent or minimize potential contaminated runoff from on-site soils;  Obtain the relevant underground construction permits and approvals to ensure that dewatering of contaminated groundwater and subsequent disposal or reuse of groundwater is conducted in accordance with local and state regulations;  Follow recommended dust control measures to reduce worker and public exposure to on-site contaminants that may be attached to airborn dust particles;  Conduct recommended site preparation activities, including monitoring well destruction, in a manner that ensures cross-contamination of sites will not occur;  Comply with excavation and shoring guidelines regarding the proper handling, storage, and disposal of contaminated and/or wet impacted soil to ensure that workers or nearby residents would not be exposed should such soils be encountered;  Characterize and properly reuse or dispose of excavated soil to ensure that construction workers or nearby residents are not exposed to contaminated soil; Comply with groundwater extraction and disposal guidelines in order to minimize the volume of extracted groundwater and ensure that appropriate remediation occurs. NOISE N-1: Construction- Related Noise Reduction Measures Construction-Related Noise Reduction Measures. The applicant shall apply the following measures during construction of the project.  Mufflers. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and all internal combustion engine driven machinery with intake and exhaust mufflers and engine Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 5 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation shrouds, as applicable, shall be in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. During construction, all equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards.  Electrical Power. Electrical power, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used to run compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities.  Equipment Staging. All stationary equipment shall be staged as far away from the adjacent senior living center and multi-family residential development as feasible.  Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use.  Workers’ Radios. All noise from workers’ radios shall be controlled to a point that they are not audible at sensitive receptors near construction activity.  Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction.  Disturbance Coordinator. The applicant shall designate a disturbance coordinator who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The noise disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.  Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques. During the demolition, site preparation, grading, and building phases of construction, temporary sound barriers rated to Sound Transmission Class 20 or higher shall be City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 6 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation installed and maintained facing the northwestern and northeastern boundaries of the project site. Temporary sound barriers shall block line of sight between noise- generating construction equipment and adjacent residential windows and shall be placed as close to the source equipment as feasible. Mobile sound barriers may be used as appropriate to attenuate construction noise near the source equipment. During the building construction phase, temporary sound barriers shall be applied to generators and cranes used on-site. Monitoring. The applicant shall retain a qualified acoustic engineer to monitor representative construction noise during all phases of construction. The acoustic engineer shall document hourly noise levels at the project site boundary adjacent to sensitive receptors and provide this data to the City. If measured hourly noise levels from construction activity exceed 70 dBA by at least 10 dBA for two or more hours in a day, the acoustic engineer shall notify the City within 24 hours, and the applicant shall implement additional noise attenuation measures sufficient to achieve this noise standard. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC T-1: Bus Stop Relocation Coordination Bus Stop Relocation Coordination. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Palo Alto, the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority, and the Stanford Marguerite Shuttle operator to relocate the bus stop during construction activities to minimize disruption to transit operation. Applicant or designee Prior to and during construction CPA Planning Department City of Palo Alto COLLEAGUES MEMO November 06, 2017 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 8630) DATE: November 6, 2017 TO: City Council Members FROM: Council Member Fine, Vice Mayor Kniss, Council Member Wolbach SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES' MEMO REGARDING ZONING UPDATES TO ENCOURAGE DIVERSE HOUSING NEAR JOBS, TRANSIT, AND SERVICES Objectives: Palo Alto and the Bay Area region are experiencing a housing crisis, years in the making, which causes significant economic, social, and environmental harm. While Palo Alto may never be a truly affordable place to live, the City Council has an obligation to current and future residents to explore policies that expand housing choices for people of different incomes, generations, and needs. This memo intends to begin the process to: 1. Update and improve the zoning code and other regulations to facilitate a greater variety and quantity of both below market rate (BMR) and moderately-sized market-rate housing; and 2. Increase housing density near jobs, transit, and services; and 3. Streamline the approval process for new housing projects. Recommendation: We recommend our colleagues refer this memo to staff to return to Council with a Work Plan outlining the process and resources to study and implement the proposals listed in the Discussion section (and other relevant recommendations to support the Objectives). Following Council approval of the Work Plan, proposals should be reviewed by the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) and ultimately by Council for adoption. Some proposals will require less work than others, and so may be considered in advance of others. Discussion: There are many policy tools to promote additional moderately-sized and reasonably-priced homes, especially near job centers, transit, and services. The following suggestions should be considered by the PTC and staff as a starting point. Any changes should be appropriately applied in different areas of our community with sensitivity to location and current land use patterns. For example, CD, CN, CS, CC1, CC2 zones in Downtown should be treated differently than an RM zone in a predominantly residential neighborhood. ●Housing Floor Area Ratio (FAR): ○Increase housing FAR where appropriate. 10 November 06, 2017 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 8630) ○ Allow non-retail commercial FAR to convert to residential FAR. ● Affordable Housing: ○ Explore increasing affordable housing (Below Market Rate - BMR) percentage requirements in market-rate developments up to 20%, based on economic analysis. ○ Explore implementing inclusionary BMR program for rental units. ○ Height and density for BMR projects: Allow additional height (not exceeding the city-wide height limit) or FAR for projects that contain substantially more BMR units than required. ● Units/Acre: ○ Explore eliminating housing unit limits where/when possible, and use FAR in place of units/acre. ○ Explore housing unit minimums rather than unit maximums (e.g. require building at least 80% of the units allowed under applicable zoning or land use designation). ○ Implement a no net-loss policy when housing is redeveloped and preserve existing non-conforming cottage clusters. ● Parking: ○ Allow residential projects to consolidate parking and TDM efforts with other projects or the Palo Alto TMA. ○ Explore bringing underutilized parking spaces into a public market. ○ Car-light housing: Explore car-light housing with reduced or eliminated off-street parking requirements. (e.g. TransForm’s GreenTRIP Certification) ○ Transportation Demand Management (TDM): explore reducing residential parking requirements for projects which provide effective TDM measures. ● Retail/Residential Mixed-Use Projects: Encourage mixed-use zoning with ground-floor retail, community, or non-profit space; and one or more floors of housing; but no commercial office uses. ● Transit-Oriented Development: Expand and augment the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development (PTOD) zone. ● And other compatible housing-related implementation programs from the Comprehensive Plan update. Background: The current housing shortage is a threat to our city’s prosperity, diversity, stability, environment, and community character. In City-sponsored polling in 2016, 76% of Palo Alto residents indicated that housing was an “extremely serious” or “very serious” problem. Housing is one of our Council Priorities for 2017. Our new Comprehensive Plan will encourage exploration of policy changes to enable more housing. November 06, 2017 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 8630) The housing crisis has many symptoms including displacement, separated families, long commutes, lack of diversity, environmental impacts, etc. The City is attempting to address several of these. This memo’s recommendations focus on the central cause of these symptoms: the lack of adequate housing options to meet current and growing demand. Government and academic research consistently point to the need for more housing at a variety of price-points as essential to solving the housing crisis. To prevent urban sprawl and congestion, new housing is best located near transit, jobs, and services. Few Palo Altans prefer to see new office buildings instead of housing, or luxury penthouses instead of apartments which working professionals and families can afford. Rather than indefinitely continue the practice of responding to each site or housing proposal on its own - and rather than struggling to adapt our policies in each case - we suggest proactively identifying and changing policies which are counterproductive toward our housing goals. Palo Alto has made progress. We preserved Buena Vista and helped keep over 100 families in our community. We are considering new affordable and market-rate housing proposals. We have taken steps toward making permanent an annual office-cap. But we can still do more to address the other side of our jobs-housing imbalance. Doing so requires we understand and reduce some of the barriers to creating more housing. Some of Palo Alto’s regulations operate in practice to skew development away from reasonably-priced housing. Instead, we currently incentivize commercial development over housing, large housing units over smaller ones, and pricier housing over more affordable. Of particular concern are our consistently low limits on numbers of units per-acre, low-FAR allowances for housing (including in mixed-use projects), requirements for more parking than is used, and requirement for on-site (rather than adjacent or nearby) parking. Creating more housing for a range of ages and incomes is the most equitable and environmentally sustainable path for Palo Alto. As a collective-action problem, the housing crisis requires all cities to share in the solution. Cities which have added to the regional demand by creating jobs have a particular obligation to permit housing in a manner appropriate for their local character. Palo Alto’s housing production has lagged behind our commitments, while several neighboring communities have pursued new housing development near jobs, transit, and services. Palo Alto can do its part to address the housing shortage by increasing housing density in a responsible manner. Resource Impact: A modest amount of existing planning and legal staff and consultant resources will be required to develop the proposed Work Plan and return to Council. Development of a Work Plan can be accomplished within existing departmental budgets and staff capacity. The amount of detail and supporting analysis associated with elements of the Work Plan that may be required will November 06, 2017 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 8630) be dependent on the process and the time frame desired for this discussion and its return to Council. Thereafter, depending on what Council chooses to pursue and on what timeline, implementation of some or all of the proposals may require additional resources, such as consultants and specialists, and adjustments to other priorities and timelines. Staff will provide additional information in the initial Work Plan. ATTACHMENT F ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 2755 El Camino Real, 16PLN-00464 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.30(J) (WORKFORCE HOUSING COMBINING DISTRICT ) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (ft) None required 19,563 sf (.0049 ac) No change Site Width (ft) 113 No change Site Depth (ft) 188 No change Minimum Setbacks Front Yard (ft) Subject to decisionmaking body (1) No structures existing 11 feet, 9 inches Rear Yard (ft) 10 feet(2) N/A (parking lot) 18 feet, 9 inches to building; 3 feet to subterranean garage/ramp Interior Side Yard 5 feet(2) N/A 5 feet Interior Side Yard if abutting residential zone district (ft) (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) 10 feet N/A N/A Street Side Yard (ft) Subject to decisionmaking body (1) N/A 8 feet, 2 inches at closest point Maximum Site Coverage None Required None Required None Required Landscape/Open Space Coverage 20% (3) N/A 27% Usable Open Space 75 square feet (sf) per unit N/A 77 square feet per unit Maximum Height (ft) Standard 50’ N/A 50’ Within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM- 40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 50’, except as limited by applicable daylight plane requirements N/A N/A Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line N/A N/A Maximum Residential Density (net) None Required N/A None Required Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – Residential-Only Projects 2.0:1 Parking Lot 2.0:1 Vehicle Parking Parking requirements shall be no less than one space per unit or bedroom, whichever is greater. The decisionmaking body may reduce this standard based on a parking study. Any incidental retail shall be subject to the parking requirements outlined in Section 18.52. 34 existing 68 parking spaces provided (~1.2 per unit, inclusive of guest parking ) Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking requirements shall be in accordance with Section18.52.040. All bicycle parking must be provided at grade. (for proposed project: 57 long-term; 6 short term) N/A Long (69 long term [including 1 cargo]; 16 short term) TDM Plan A transportation demand management (TDM) plan shall be required and shall comply with the TDM pursuant to Section 18.52.050(d) and associated administrative guidelines. N/A See TDM plan in Attachment 0 Notes: 1. A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. 2. In order to encourage below-grade parking, garage ramps and subterranean structures may encroach into the required setback provided that sufficient landscaping is still provided between the project site and adjacent properties. 3. Landscape/Open space may be any combination of landscaping or private and common open spaces. 4. Useable open space includes a combination of common and private open space. B rys o Cowper Stre Alma Street Coas et mouth Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Hansen Way Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way El Camino Real Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California Avenue Wellesley Street Princeton Street Oberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College AvenueWilliams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford Avenue El C amino R eal venue P ark B o ule v ard Park Avenue Escobita Avenue Churchill Avenue S e q u oia A v e n u e Mariposa Avenue Castilleja Avenue Mira m onte Avenu e M adrono A venue Portola A venue Manzanita Avenue Coleridge Avenue Leland Avenue Stanford Avenue Birch Street Ash Street Lowell Avenue Alma Street Tennyson Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan Avenue Jacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Peppe r Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson S P Orinda Street Birch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard College Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield Lane Birch Street California Avenue Park Boulevard Nogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Waverley Stre e Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street C olora d o A v e n ue Street Emerson Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado AvenueAlma Street Alma Street High Stre et t Emerson Waverley Oaks Washington Avenue Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson Street Nevada Avenue North California Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Ramona Street High Street North California Avenue Oregon Expressway Marion Avenue Ramona Street C olora d o A v enue Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Cowper Street Anton CourtNevada Avenue Tasso Street Tasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Pl W e bster Middlefield Road Lowell Avenue Seale AvenueTennyson Avenue Melvill Cowper Street Tasso Street er StreetColeridnt Street Emerson Street Kellogg Avenue Orego Garland Drive Seale Byron Street Webster Street Sedro Lane Peral Lane Madeline Ct Green Manor Oregon Expressway Sheridan Avenue CalTrain RO W Lane 66 Lane 66 e Olmst e d Road El Dorado Avenue Page Mill Road Abrams Court Barnes Court l ey Lan e nSt Olmsted R oad Olmsted Road Wellesley St Yale St Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Birch Street E l C O r e g o n E A l m a S t r e e t This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits Half Mile Radius from Caltrain Station Caltrain Stations PF Parcels 0'866' PF Zoned Parcels Within 0.5 Miles California Avenue Caltrain Stop CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2017-05-17 15:49:59 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\chodgki.mdb) Quarry Road Welch Road Arboretum Road Quarry Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Me dic al Fou ndation Wa y Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Emb arcade ro Road Encina Avenue El C a mino Real U rban Lane W ells Aven u e Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Channing Avenue Alma Alma Street PaloAltoA El Camino Real venue Mitchell Lane Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street La ne 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21 High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Ruthven Avenue Hawthorne Avenue Lane 33 PaloAltoAvenue Everett Avenue Poe Street Wa verley Street Ta sso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Byron Street Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Lane A West Lane B West Lane B East Lane D We Lincoln AvenueAddison Avenue Forest Avenue Dow ning Lane L Lan e 39 Hamilton Avenue Waverley Street Kiplin Bryant Street Ramona Street Scot Byron Street Lytton Avenue PaloAlto Avenue Fulto Middlefield Road Webster Street Ramona Street Road Paulsen Ln Lane 15 E Lane 20 W Lane 20 E University Avenue CalTrain RO W Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street y Orchard Lane Vineyard Lane Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill R oad Bryant Street Ramona Street Blake Wilbur Drive Palo Road Shopping Center W ay Shopping Center Way Shopping Center W ay London Plane Way Plum Lane Sweet Olive W ay Pear Lane Lane 12 W Lane 5 E Lasuen Street Pistache Place Everett Avenue Homer Avenue Palo Alto Av Byron Street Emerson Street Campus DriveCampus Dr i ve Aboretum Road Aboretum Road G alvez Stre et Palm Drive ension Q u arry R o a d Alma Street Hawthorne Avenue Lytton Avenue ald R oa d Arboretum Road U n i v e r s a d This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits Half Mile Radius from Caltrain Station Caltrain Stations PF Parcels 0'866' PF Zoned Parcels Within 0.5 Miles Palo Alto Caltrain Stop CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2017-05-17 15:42:44 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\chodgki.mdb) Carolina Lane e sev Monroe Drive Wilkie W a y W hitclem Pl W hitclem DriveDuluth Circle Edlee Avenue Dinah's Court C esano Court Monroe Drive Miller Avenue Whitclem Wy Whitclem Ct Ferne Avenue Ben Lomond Drive Fairfield Court Ferne Avenue Ponce Drive Hemlock Court Ferne Court Alma Street Monroe Drive San Antonio Road Nita Av e nue R uthelm a Avenue Darlington Ct East Charleston Road Lun dyLane N ewberry Ct Park Boulevard G e org e Ho od Ln Alma Street elt Circle Lind er o Dri ve Wright Place St a rr KingCi r cl e Shasta Drive Mackay Drive Diablo Court Scripps Avenue Scripps Court Nelson Drive Tioga Court Creekside Drive Greenmeadow W ay Ben Lomond Drive Parkside Drive Dixon Place Ely Place Dake Avenue Ferne Avenue San Antonio Court (Private) ChristopherCourt CalcaterraPlace Ely Place Ely Pla c e Adobe Place Nelson Court ByronStreet Keats Court Middlefield Road Duncan Place C arlso n Court Duncan Place Mumford Place E ast C h arlesto n R o ad San Antonio Road Court Bryant Street RooseveltCircle Ramona Street CarlsonCircle R edwood Circle South Leghorn Street Montrose Avenue Maplewood sto n Ct E S e min ole Way Sutherland DriveNels o n Drive El C a pita n Pla c e Monroe Drive Silva Avenue Silva Court Miller Court Briarwood Way CalTrain RO W W est Charleston Road Avenue Maplewood Pl Mackay Drive ar StAlder Ln pruce Ln J u nip er W a y Ric k ey's W y J u nip er L a n e Cashel St Noble St Hettinger Ln Pratt Ln Ryan LaneGene CtBrassinga Ct Cole Ct l S an A ntonio A v C h a r l e s t o n R This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits Half Mile Radius from Caltrain Station Caltrain Stations PF Parcels 0'866' PF Zoned Parcels Within 0.5 Miles San Antonio Caltrain Station CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2017-05-17 15:54:44 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\chodgki.mdb) 160 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 204  SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111  PHONE: 415 398 3050  FAX: 415 397 5065 001-001; jf WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 17175.012 ADVISORS IN: REAL ESTATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SAN FRANCISCO A. JERRY KEYSER TIMOTHY C. KELLY KATE EARLE FUNK DEBBIE M. KERN REED T. KAWAHARA DAVID DOEZEMA LOS ANGELES KATHLEEN H. HEAD JAMES A. RABE GREGORY D. SOO-HOO KEVIN E. ENGSTROM JULIE L. ROMEY SAN DIEGO PAUL C. MARRA To: City of Palo Alto Attn: Claire Hodgkins From: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Date: January 17, 2018 Subject: Peer Review Technical Memorandum Financial Analysis for Proposed Project at 2755 El Camino Real The following technical memorandum summarizes Keyser Marston Associates’ (KMA’s) independent peer review financial analysis of the proposed project at 2755 El Camino. The financial analysis includes an independent assessment of construction costs, indirect costs, and rent projections. It also includes an evaluation of the project’s return on cost under various scenarios, including an all market rate development and assuming deed restrictions for all or part of the units at different levels of affordability, as detailed below. KMA’s review is based on current and recent data from other available projects, published articles, and recent similar project experience. Review factors include: income/revenue potential, hard and soft costs of development, and financing and return on cost based on industry sources. Conclusions are presented both in terms of projected developer return on cost and projected residual land value for the various scenarios outlined below. The conclusion also takes into account the context of available and pertinent land sale comparables in Palo Alto and the pertinent target market. Construction costs provided by the applicant’s construction contractor were independently peer reviewed on behalf of the City by TBD Construction Cost Management Consultants. KMA’s conclusions in this analysis are based on the conclusions from TBD’s peer review. KMA/TBD’s findings (rounded to the nearest $0.5M) are as follows: 1. Project Construction (hard) Cost Data: On behalf of the City, TBD’s peer review indicates a cost range low of $24.0 Million and a cost range high of $31.0 Million. Given there are many unknowns in the cost forecast (as would be expected at this stage of the design process), TBD also provided an average cost estimate at $27.5 Million. It should be noted that these construction cost estimates reflect January 17, 2018 Page 2 001-001; jf 17175.012 relatively small units but each with the cost burden of bathroom and kitchen. Also, TBD’s estimates include an inflation contingency factor to account for the anticipated start of the project in July 2018. At this time, California and Silicon Valley in particular are witnessing “hot” market conditions that appear likely to continue into 2018 with subsequent rising costs. However, it appears appropriate for financial projections to assume the TBD cost estimate average between low and high, i.e., $27.5 Million. For that reason, the financial analysis herein is based on TBD’s cost estimate of $27.5 Million. 2. Indirect Cost Estimates: Indirect costs reflect costs from project start to when the project is complete and starts to produce income and include costs such as architecture and engineering, legal and marketing, developer fees and a small contingency. Estimated indirect costs (often referred as soft costs) are indicated in the proforma presented in this document, as are estimated costs for permits/fees and construction financing. Total indirect costs are estimated at $7.0 Million. With indirect costs estimated at $7.0 Million and direct construction costs at $27.5 Million, the estimate of the total development costs is $34.5 Million (Table 1). 3. Acquisition Cost: The final item taken into account in this analysis is the cost of acquiring the property. If the project is approved, the developer, Windy Hill, would exercise an option to acquire the property from Pollock FRB LLC. The currently negotiated price of the land is $7.5 Million (Table 1). 4. Rent Projection and Return on Cost Analyses: The Return on Cost Analyses that follows include an analysis of the return on cost if all units were offered at market rate as well as the financial impact of return on cost if selected workforce or affordable housing requirements are imposed or agreed to for the project, The proposed project consists of 57 units: 40 studios, 17 one bedroom units, with 68 parking spaces (out of which 60 are stackers). The financial analysis assumes market rate rents for the project based on project opening in early 2020, approximately 18 months after the assumed project construction start of July 2018. The projection of rents is based on the review of current market rent comparables (Table 2A), and then adjusted for a rent escalation factor to take into account the projected project opening in early 2020. The estimate assumes that the following four key factors would influence market rents: (a) the Palo Alto market is “Hot,” but (b) the project units at 502 SF for studios and 645 SF for one bedroom units are small; (c) the project is located adjacent to heavily travelled streets; and (d) the project has minimal amenities and stacked parking. With these January 17, 2018 Page 3 001-001; jf 17175.012 factors in mind, based on the review of the rents of comparable projects, the current estimate is that the studios would command $3,250 per month ($6.45/SF), and the one bedrooms would command $3500 per month ($5.45/SF). When adjusted for an escalation factor of 2.5% per year1, the projected rents during the assumed project opening year would be around $3,410 per month ($6.80/SF) for studios and $3,680 per month ($5.70/SF) for one bedroom units (Table 2B). Table 2C presents the 2017 rent limits2 for workforce housing at 130% Area Median Income (AMI), 140% AMI and 150% AMI, and affordable housing at 120% AMI. These rents have been adjusted for an escalation factor of 2.5%3 per year to reflect a buildout date of 2019-2020 and are presented in Table 2B. These rents are utilized in the subsequent calculations of return on cost. 5. Return on Cost for All Market Rate Units: Per CBRE’s 2017 US Cap Rate Survey, for the first half of 2017, the expected return on cost for value-add multifamily infill properties (in vicinity of the subject site) is between 3.75% to 4.25% (Table 3A). (Although traditionally, KMA has seen a higher return on cost expectation for residential developments, frequently around 4.5%.) Utilizing the projected rents as discussed and other factors including an operating expense allowance of $13,000 per unit as presented in the attached financial analysis of an all market rate project, the return on cost is estimated at 3.91% (Table 3B). Thus, the expected return on cost, using the TBD development cost estimate, falls in the lower end of the target range noted in the CBRE report. 6. Return on Cost for Workforce Housing Project: The City has also requested financial analysis of the project if the following requirements are imposed or agreed to for the project. Four scenarios were evaluated, assuming rent limits in perpetuity as detailed in the alternatives below.  Alternative 1: ˗ 6 units @140% of AMI ˗ 6 units @ 150% of AMI ˗ Balance of units @ market rate  Alternative 2: 100% of units @ 150% of AMI  Alternative 3: 100% of units @ 140% of AMI  Alternative 4: 100% of units @ 130% of AMI The resulting restricted rents are presented in attached Table 2B, as are the return on cost calculations (Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7). Of course, these returns would 1 This is as per the rent escalation factor permitted by California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. 2 Source: http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/rentincome/17/rent/11-rent-limits-post-041417.pdf 3 This standard rent escalation factor is used for the purposes of this analysis. The 2017 rents are based on area median income calculations prepared annually by HCD. January 17, 2018 Page 4 001-001; jf 17175.012 be lower than for a market rate project. In this instance, the projected returns on cost decrease to 3.82% for Alternative 1, 3.70% for Alternative 2, 3.33% for Alternative 3 and 2.97 for Alternative 4. 7. Return on Cost for Project with Affordable Housing Requirements: The City has also requested financial analysis of the proposed project if the City imposed an affordable housing requirement limiting certain units to occupants whose income does not exceed 120% of AMI. The following table indicates reduced returns that would result if one of the following requirements were imposed: i.e. affordable units @ 10%, 15%, or 20% of total units as affordable units. All Market Rate Units 10% Afford. Units 15% Afford. Units 20% Afford. Units NOI (in M) $1.641 $1.582 $1.553 $1.534 ROC 3.91% 3.77% 3.70% 3.65% See attached Tables 8 – 10 for Return on Cost calculations for respective affordable requirements. 8. Residual Land Value Analyses: Finally, KMA has prepared residual land value analyses for the project. These analyses are attached, along with the respective return on cost analyses (Tables 3B to 10). As mentioned earlier, for an all-market rate unit project, the developer would have to accept a 3.91% return on cost to support a land value of $7.5 Million. The residual land value analyses indicate that a 4.0% return on cost requirement would reduce the justified land cost to $6.5 Million, and a 4.5% return on cost requirement would reduce it to $2.0 Million (Table 3B). Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO Appendix 1/17/2018 Development Cost and Rent Estimates Table 1: Program and Development Cost Estimates Table 2A: Market Rate Rent Comparables 2017 Table 2B: Market Rate and Affordable Rent Summary Table 2C: HCD Rent Limits 2017 Table 3A: CBRE 2017 CAP Rate Survey Return on Cost and Residual Land Value Analyses Table 3B: All Market Rate Units Table 4: 6 Units @ 140% AMI and 6 Units at 150% AMI, Rest at Market Rate Table 5: Workforce Housing @ 150% AMI Table 6: Workforce Housing @ 140% AMI Table 7: Workforce Housing @ 130% AMI Table 8: 10% Affordable Units (6 units @ 120% AMI) Table 9: 15% Affordable Units (9 units @ 120% AMI) Table 10: 20% Affordable Units (11 units @ 120% AMI) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO Table 1: Program and Development Cost Estimates Development Program Units NRSF GSF Estimate Site Area Residential - 4 levels 57 36,900 44,400 0.45 AC Parking - 68 spaces 15,600 19,602 SF 60,000 In Per Per % of Development Costs Millions NRSF DU Directs (rounded)(rounded) Total Direct Costs Per TBD Estimates $27.5 $745 $482,500 100% Total Indirect Costs1 $7.0 $190 $123,000 25.5% Total Development Costs Before Land (Direct + Indirect)$34.5 $935 $605,500 125.5% Land Costs $7.5 $203 $131,500 27.3% Total Development Costs (incl. Land)$42.0 $1,138 $737,000 152.7% Notes: 1. 1/17/2018 Indirect costs include architecture and engineering costs, permit fees, impact fees, legal and marketing fees, developer fees and a small contingency. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17; 1/17/2018 2755 ECR PALO ALTO Table 2A: Market Rate Rent Comparables 2017 1/17/2018 *using median asking rent / SF if a range & rounding up to next 5 # units Built Size (SF)Rent Rent/SF (median if a range) Size (SF)Rent Rent/SF (median if a range) Amenities 2755 ECR (Projection)502 $3,250 $6.45 645 $3,500 $5.45 Limited 1 The Marc 118 675 $3,875 $5.75 501 Forest Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 2 Mia Palo Alto 1964 606 $3,560 $5.90 535 Everett Ave $3,275 - 3,850 Palo Alto, CA 94301 3 Parker Palo Alto 268 1963 695 $2,855 $4.10 Limited 1094 Tanland Dr.610 - 779 SF $2450 - $3260 Palo Alto, CA 94303 4 Palo Alto Place 45 1964 716 $3,225 $4.50 Limited 565 Arastradero Rd Palo Alto, CA 94306 5 Southwood 100 1985 750 $2,900 $3.90 2850 Middlefield Rd.$2800 - $3000 Palo Alto, CA 94306 6 Tan Plaza 61 1965 855 3440 $4.00 Limited 580 Arastradero Rd $3,225 – 3,660 Palo Alto, CA 94306 7 Oak Creek (Stanford affiliated)759 1969 530 $2,935 $5.55 865 3560 $4.10 1600 Sandhill Road 508- 559 $2735 - $3,135 670 - 1,060 SF $2800 - $4320 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Plentiful, including pool, sauna, clubhouse etc. Plentiful, including pool, fitness center etc. Plentiful including Sauna, Spa and Pool Plentiful including Pool, Gym, Spa etc. ---None--- ---None--- ---None--- ---None--- ---None--- Studios 1 bed/ 1 bath ---None--- Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17; 1/17/2018 2755 ECR PALO ALTO Table 2A: Market Rate Rent Comparables 2017 1/17/2018 *using median asking rent / SF if a range & rounding up to next 5 # units Built Size (SF)Rent Rent/SF (median if a range) Size (SF)Rent Rent/SF (median if a range) Amenities Studios 1 bed/ 1 bath 8 Montage 46 1999 700 $3,500 $5.00 Limited 4020 El Camino Real $3000 - $3100 Palo Alto, CA 94306 9 Stanford Villa 209 1960 595 $2,355 $4.00 780 $2,555 $3.30 Limited 3351 Alma Street $2450 - $2665 Palo Alto, CA 94306 OTHER CITIES 10 777 Hamilton 195 2017 725 $3,180 $4.40 777 Hamilton Ave 703 - 743 $3,154 – 3,210 Menlo Park, CA 94025 11 ELAN Menlo Park 146 2017 760 $3,405 $4.50 Limited 3645 Haven Ave 715 - 810 $3,190 – 3,620 Menlo Park, CA 94025 12 DOMUS on the Blvd 193 2015 800 $3,945 $4.95 2650 W El Camion Real 870 - 735 $3,468 – 4,418 Mountain View, CA 94040 Source: Apartments.com for all rents except The Marc and Stanford Villa for studio, November 2017 Plentiful including Fitness Center and Gym. Plentiful including Pool, Gym, Gameroom etc. ---None--- ---None--- ---None--- ---None--- Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17; 1/17/2018 2755 ECR PALO ALTO Table 2B: Market Rate and Affordable Rent Summary 1/17/2018 Dominant Size Month $/SF/Mo Month $/SF/Mo (rounded) Market Rate Studio (1-person hh)502 SF $3,250 $6.45 $3,410 $6.80 1B/1B (2-person hh)645 SF $3,500 $5.45 $3,680 $5.70 120% AMI Studio (1-person hh)502 SF $2,508 $5.00 $2,630 $5.25 1B/1B (2-person hh)645 SF $2,688 $4.15 $2,820 $4.35 130% AMI Studio (1-person hh)502 SF $2,717 $5.40 $2,850 $5.70 1B/1B (2-person hh)645 SF $2,912 $4.50 $3,060 $4.75 140% AMI Studio (1-person hh)502 SF $2,926 $5.85 $3,070 $6.10 1B/1B (2-person hh)645 SF $3,136 $4.85 $3,290 $5.10 150% AMI Studio (1-person hh)502 SF $3,135 $6.25 $3,290 $6.55 1B/1B (2-person hh)645 SF $3,360 $5.20 $3,530 $5.45 Rents 2017-18 Escalated Rents 2019-20 Note: Expected 2019-20 rents have been calculated based on an escalation factor of 2.5% per year. This is similar to the rent escalation factor permitted by California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. See Table 2C for 2017 rent limits for 120%, 130% and 140% AMI levels. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17; 1/17/2018 2755 ECR PALO ALTO Table 2C: HCD Rent Limits 2017 1/17/2018 Affordable Rents1 % AMI2 Affordability Category 1- Person (Studio) 2- Person (1 Bedroom) 150%Workforce Income $3,135 $3,360140%Workforce Income $2,926 $3,136 130%Workforce Income $2,717 $2,912 120%Moderate Income $2,508 $2,688 110%Moderate Income $2,299 $2,464 100%Area Median Income1 $2,090 $2,240 Source of AMI: http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/rentincome/17/rent/11-rent-limits-post-041417.pdf Notes: Household Size 1. The rents presented here are 2017 rents, and do not include the escalation factor for 2019-2020. For escalated rents, please refer to Table 2B. 2. AMI = Area Median Income; The affordable rents are calculated based on the respective AMI. HCD calculates the AMI annually. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17; 1/17/2018 2755 ECR PALO ALTO Table 3A: CBRE 2017 CAP Rate Survey 1/17/2018 Source: U.S Cap Rate Data, First Half 2017, CBRE, July 2017. Source: U.S Cap Rate Data, First Half 2017, CBRE, July 2017. Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 3B: All Market Rate Units Operating Income Dominant AnnualUnit Mix & Number Size Month $/SF/Mo Revenue % EGI $/DU/Yr (rounded)(rounded)(rounded)(rounded) Market Rate Units Studios 40 502 SF $3,410 $6.80 $1,637,000 $41,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 17 645 SF $3,680 $5.70 $751,000 $44,000 57 $2,388,000 Other Income $119,000 $2,000 Total Gross Income $2,507,000 $44,000 Less Vacancy/Bad Debt @ 5% ($125,000)($2,000) Effective Gross Income $2,382,000 100%$42,000 Operating Expense Allowance ($741,000)-31%($13,000) Net Operating Income $1,641,000 69%$29,000 Return on Cost Calculation Total Development Cost Estimate Excluding Land $34,500,000 See Table 1 Total Land Cost Estimate $7,500,000 See Table 1 Total Development Cost Including Land $42,000,000 Return on Cost 3.91% Rent Expectations (2019-2020) 1/17/2018 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 3B: All Market Rate Units 1/17/2018 Residual Land Value Analysis Example 1 Example 2 Return on Cost (ROC) Hurdle Examples 4.00%3.91% Supported Private Investment for ROC Hurdle $41,000,000 $42,000,000 Development Costs before land ($34,500,000)($34,500,000) Residual Land Value $6,500,000 $7,500,000 Residual Land Value vs. ROC -$4 -$2 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75% RL V ( M i l l i o n s ) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 4: 6 Units @ 140% AMI and 6 Units at 150% AMI, Rest at Market Rate Operating Income Dominant Annual Unit Mix & Number Size Month $/SF/Mo Revenue % EGI $/DU/Yr (rounded)(rounded)(rounded)(rounded) Market Rate Units Studios 32 502 SF $3,410 $6.80 $1,309,000 $41,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 13 645 SF $3,680 $5.70 $574,000 $44,000 45 $1,883,000 Units @150% AMI Studios 4 502 SF $3,290 $6.55 $158,000 $39,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 2 645 SF $3,530 $5.45 $85,000 $42,000 6 $243,000 Units @140% AMI Studios 4 502 SF $3,070 $6.10 $147,000 $37,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 2 645 SF $3,290 $5.10 $79,000 $39,000 6 $226,000 Other Income $118,000 $2,000 Total Gross Income $2,470,000 $43,000 Less Vacancy/Bad Debt @ 5% ($124,000)($2,000) Effective Gross Income $2,346,000 100%$41,000 Operating Expense Allowance ($741,000)-32%($13,000) Net Operating Income $1,605,000 68%$28,000 Return on Cost Calculation Total Development Cost Estimate Excluding Land $34,500,000 See Table 1 Total Land Cost Estimate $7,500,000 See Table 1 Total Development Cost Including Land $42,000,000 Return on Cost 3.82% 1/17/2018 Rent Expectations (2019-2020) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 4: 6 Units @ 140% AMI and 6 Units at 150% AMI, Rest at Market Rate 1/17/2018 Residual Land Value Analysis Return on Cost (ROC) Hurdle Example 3.75% Supported Private Investment for ROC Hurdle $42,800,000 Development Costs before land ($34,500,000) Residual Land Value $8,300,000 Residual Land Value vs. ROC -$4 -$2 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75% RL V ( M i l l i o n s ) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 5: Workforce Housing @ 150% AMI Operating Income Dominant Annual Unit Mix & Number Size Month $/SF/Mo Revenue % EGI $/DU/Yr (rounded)(rounded)(rounded)(rounded) Workforce Housing @ 150% AMI Studios 40 502 SF $3,290 $6.55 $1,579,000 $39,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 17 645 SF $3,530 $5.45 $720,000 $42,000 57 $2,299,000 Other Income $115,000 $2,000 Total Gross Income $2,414,000 $42,000 Less Vacancy/Bad Debt @ 5% ($121,000)($2,000) Effective Gross Income $2,293,000 100%$40,000 Operating Expense Allowance ($741,000)-32%($13,000) Net Operating Income $1,552,000 68%$27,000 Return on Cost Calculation Total Development Cost Estimate Excluding Land $34,500,000 See Table 1 Total Land Cost Estimate $7,500,000 See Table 1 Total Development Cost Including Land $42,000,000 Return on Cost 3.70% 1/17/2018 Rent Expectations (2019-2020) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 5: Workforce Housing @ 150% AMI 1/17/2018 Residual Land Value Analysis Return on Cost (ROC) Hurdle Example 3.75% Supported Private Investment for ROC Hurdle $41,400,000 Development Costs before land ($34,500,000) Residual Land Value $6,900,000 Residual Land Value vs. ROC -$6 -$4 -$2 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75%RL V ( M i l l i o n s ) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 6: Workforce Housing @ 140% AMI Operating Income Dominant Annual Unit Mix & Number Size Month $/SF/Mo Revenue % EGI $/DU/Yr (rounded)(rounded)(rounded)(rounded) Workforce Housing @ 140% AMI Studios 40 502 SF $3,070 $6.10 $1,474,000 $37,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 17 645 SF $3,290 $5.10 $671,000 $39,000 57 $2,145,000 Other Income $107,000 $2,000 Total Gross Income $2,252,000 $40,000 Less Vacancy/Bad Debt @ 5% ($113,000)($2,000) Effective Gross Income $2,139,000 100%$38,000 Operating Expense Allowance ($741,000)-35%($13,000) Net Operating Income $1,398,000 65%$25,000 Return on Cost Calculation Total Development Cost Estimate Excluding Land $34,500,000 See Table 1 Total Land Cost Estimate $7,500,000 See Table 1 Total Development Cost Including Land $42,000,000 Return on Cost 3.33% Rent Expectations (2019-2020) 1/17/2018 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 6: Workforce Housing @ 140% AMI 1/17/2018 Residual Land Value Analysis Return on Cost (ROC) Hurdle Example 3.75% Supported Private Investment for ROC Hurdle $37,300,000 Development Costs before land ($34,500,000) Residual Land Value $2,800,000 Residual Land Value vs. ROC -$8 -$6 -$4 -$2 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75% RL V ( M i l l i o n s ) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 7: Workforce Housing @ 130% AMI Operating Income Dominant Annual Unit Mix & Number Size Month $/SF/Mo Revenue % EGI $/DU/Yr (rounded)(rounded)(rounded)(rounded) Workforce Housing @ 130% AMI Studios 40 502 SF $2,850 $5.70 $1,368,000 $34,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 17 645 SF $3,060 $4.75 $624,000 $37,000 57 $1,992,000 Other Income $100,000 $2,000 Total Gross Income $2,092,000 $37,000 Less Vacancy/Bad Debt @ 5% ($105,000)($2,000) Effective Gross Income $1,987,000 100%$35,000 Operating Expense Allowance ($741,000)-37%($13,000) Net Operating Income $1,246,000 63%$22,000 Return on Cost Calculation Total Development Cost Estimate Excluding Land $34,500,000 See Table 1 Total Land Cost Estimate $7,500,000 See Table 1 Total Development Cost Including Land $42,000,000 Return on Cost 2.97% Rent Expectations (2019-2020) 1/17/2018 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 7: Workforce Housing @ 130% AMI 1/17/2018 Residual Land Value Analysis Return on Cost (ROC) Hurdle Example 3.75% Supported Private Investment for ROC Hurdle $33,200,000 Development Costs before land ($34,500,000) Residual Land Value -$1,300,000 Residual Land Value vs. ROC -$12 -$7 -$2 $3 $8 3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75% RL V ( M i l l i o n s ) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 8: 10% Affordable Units (6 units @ 120% AMI) Operating Income Dominant Annual Unit Mix & Number Size Month $/SF/Mo Revenue % EGI $/DU/Yr (rounded)(rounded)(rounded)(rounded) Market Rate Units Studios 36 502 SF $3,410 $6.80 $1,473,000 $41,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 15 645 SF $3,680 $5.70 $662,000 $44,000 51 $2,135,000 Affordable Units @120% AMI Studios 4 502 SF $2,630 $5.25 $126,000 $32,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 2 645 SF $2,820 $4.35 $68,000 $34,000 6 $194,000 Other Income $116,000 $2,000 Total Gross Income (Market rate + Affordable + Other Income)$2,445,000 $43,000 Less Vacancy/Bad Debt @ 5% ($122,000)($2,000) Effective Gross Income $2,323,000 100%$41,000 Operating Expense Allowance ($741,000)-32%($13,000) Net Operating Income $1,582,000 68%$28,000 Return on Cost Calculation Total Development Cost Estimate Excluding Land $34,500,000 See Table 1 Total Land Cost Estimate $7,500,000 See Table 1 Total Development Cost Including Land $42,000,000 Return on Cost 3.77% Rent Expectations (2019-2020) 1/17/2018 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 8: 10% Affordable Units (6 units @ 120% AMI)1/17/2018 Residual Land Value Analysis Return on Cost (ROC) Hurdle Example 3.75% Supported Private Investment for ROC Hurdle $42,200,000 Development Costs before land ($34,500,000) Residual Land Value $7,700,000 Residual Land Value vs. ROC -$4 -$2 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75%RL V ( M i l l i o n s ) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 9: 15% Affordable Units (9 units @ 120% AMI) Operating Income Dominant Annual Unit Mix & Number Size Month $/SF/Mo Revenue % EGI $/DU/Yr (rounded)(rounded)(rounded)(rounded) Market Rate Units Studios 34 502 SF $3,410 $6.80 $1,391,000 $41,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 14 645 SF $3,680 $5.70 $618,000 $44,000 48 $2,009,000 Affordable Units @120% AMI Studios 6 502 SF $2,630 $5.25 $189,000 $32,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 3 645 SF $2,820 $4.35 $102,000 $34,000 9 $291,000 Other Income $115,000 $2,000 Total Gross Income (Market rate + Affordable + Other Income)$2,415,000 $42,000 Less Vacancy/Bad Debt @ 5% ($121,000)($2,000) Effective Gross Income $2,294,000 100%$40,000 Operating Expense Allowance ($741,000)-32%($13,000) Net Operating Income $1,553,000 68%$27,000 Return on Cost Calculation Total Development Cost Estimate Excluding Land $34,500,000 See Table 1 Total Land Cost Estimate $7,500,000 See Table 1 Total Development Cost Including Land $42,000,000 Return on Cost 3.70% Rent Expectations (2019-2020) 1/17/2018 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 9: 15% Affordable Units (9 units @ 120% AMI)1/17/2018 Residual Land Value Analysis Return on Cost (ROC) Hurdle Example 3.75% Supported Private Investment for ROC Hurdle $41,400,000 Development Costs before land ($34,500,000) Residual Land Value $6,900,000 Residual Land Value vs. ROC -$4 -$2 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75%RL V ( M i l l i o n s ) Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 10: 20% Affordable Units (11 units @ 120% AMI) Operating Income Dominant Annual Unit Mix & Number Size Month $/SF/Mo Revenue % EGI $/DU/Yr (rounded)(rounded)(rounded)(rounded) Market Rate Units Studios 32 502 SF $3,410 $6.80 $1,309,000 $41,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 14 645 SF $3,680 $5.70 $618,000 $44,000 46 $1,927,000 Affordable Units @120% AMI Studios 8 502 SF $2,630 $5.25 $252,000 $32,000 1 Bed/1 Bath 3 645 SF $2,820 $4.35 $102,000 $34,000 11 $354,000 Other Income $114,000 $2,000 Total Gross Income (Market rate + Affordable + Other Income)$2,395,000 $42,000 Less Vacancy/Bad Debt @ 5% ($120,000)($2,000) Effective Gross Income $2,275,000 100%$40,000 Operating Expense Allowance ($741,000)-33%($13,000) Net Operating Income $1,534,000 67%$27,000 Return on Cost Calculation Total Development Cost Estimate Excluding Land $34,500,000 See Table 1 Total Land Cost Estimate $7,500,000 See Table 1 Total Development Cost Including Land $42,000,000 Return on Cost 3.65% Rent Expectations (2019-2020) 1/17/2018 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates Inc. \\sf-fs2\SFEmployee\dmukherjee\My Documents\KMA Projects\Palo Alto_Jerry\Final Report\2755 ECR Palo Alto Appendix_ 2018 01 17 2755 ECR PALO ALTO: Return on Cost Analysis Table 10: 20% Affordable Units (11 units @ 120% AMI)1/17/2018 Residual Land Value Analysis Return on Cost (ROC) Hurdle Example 3.75% Supported Private Investment for ROC Hurdle $40,900,000 Development Costs before land ($34,500,000) Residual Land Value $6,400,000 Residual Land Value vs. ROC -$6 -$4 -$2 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 3.75%4.00%4.25%4.50%4.75%RL V ( M i l l i o n s ) Attachment I Context-Based Design Criteria 2755 El Camino Real 16PLN-00464 Pursuant to PAMC 18.13.060(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a multi-family residential district. The purpose is to encourage development in a multi- family residential district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Massing and Building Facades Project Consistency Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with Palo Alto neighborhoods and to provide a relationship with streets(s) Given the busy roadways adjacent the project site, the project is appropriately set back from both Page Mill Road and El Camino Real in a manner that is consistent with recommendations for exclusively residential projects along El Camino Real, as outlined in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The building orients the main entrance and entrance courtyard toward the corner to activate the corner, as is recommended in the guidelines for this specific project site as well as other corner sites in general. Projecting porches provide a human scale and signify habitation; however, these are appropriately placed so as not to be located too close to the sidewalk, which could impact the privacy and safety of future residents. Landscaping provides appropriate buffering while still maintaining a human scale to these ground floor residences. The project includes a flat roof, which is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. 2. Low-Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower- scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties The project site is located adjacent PC Zoned properties that allow for higher density and higher Floor Area Ratio than in most areas of the city, similar to the proposed development. The projects adjacent the site are also three to four stories tall (approximately 45 feet and approximately 39 feet for the Sunrise Assisted Living and Silverwood condominiums, respectively), where the project is four stories tall (approximately 49 feet) with a portion of the fourth floor being a roof deck, which reduces massing along the frontage and adjacent to the three-story building along Page Mill Road. 3. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides open space with private balconies for most of the residents and a large roof deck. The roof deck provides a better location for common open space than an at grade facility at the rear of the building because it provides more solar access and views of the City. The roof deck and balconies are oriented toward the street to increase eyes on the street in accordance with the context- based design criteria. Landscaping is provided along the north side adjacent the Silverwood condominiums to maintain privacy for residences at the condominium. Planters, trees, and use of colored pavers are all proposed as part of the common open space design. 4. Parking Design Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project’s parking is located and accessed at the rear of the site, and the majority of parking spaces are located within a below-grade garage. Existing landscape screening at the Sunrise Assisted living Center complex site as well as the new proposed landscaping provided along the perimeter of the proposed development provides screening between these existing sites and the four above grade parking space proposed along the interior of the building. 5. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood This finding does not apply; the project site is less than one-half acre. 6. Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small-lot detached units, rowhouses/townhouses, and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development The project is a rental project located on a single existing lot rather than many units on individual lots. As a rental project, no condominium subdivision could be proposed and the municipal code prohibits the conversion of rental units to for sale units. Therefore, this would not apply to the proposed project. 7. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect, and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high- quality spaces and high recycled content materials. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is subject to the California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2) and includes a variety of sustainable elements. Attachment J Performance Criteria 18.23 2755 El Camino Real 16PLN-00464 These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review or Site and Design review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The project includes placement of the trash/recycling enclosure within the underground parking garage and within appropriately sized containers. This is as far from abutting residences as reasonably possible. The site includes chutes for all three waste streams from all floors as well as accessible access to the enclosure for all users. 18.23.030 Lighting To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The proposed exterior lighting is sufficient to provide safe circulation and is directed downward to reduce glare and impacts to adjacent residents. The footcandles along all property lines are generally 0.1 or less. 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick-up. The project is exclusively multi-family residential; therefore this requirement is not applicable. 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties The project is adjacent to residential uses within nonresidential zones and therefore provides cypress trees along the interior lot lines between the site and adjacent uses. In addition, vines will be used along the rear of the building to increase greenery and reduce massing. Mechanical equipment is screened in that it is primarily located within the building on the first floor or in the where appropriate. basement or otherwise located on the roof and screened by parapet walls 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The parking for the project is primarily located below ground with all lift systems enclosed so as to reduce noise for adjacent residential uses. All refuse storage and equipment is also located within the basement with only HVAC equipment provided on the roof. The CEQA analysis outlines noise levels from this equipment and concludes that noise levels from this equipment would be less than significant; they would not have a distinguishable effect on existing noise levels at the site. 18.23.070 Parking The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project’s parking is located below grade with only guest parking provided at grade. These guest parking spots are located along the interior lot line and screened from adjacent uses with planned trees as well as existing trees on the adjacent property. 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The site circulation facilitates easy access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short- term and long-term bike parking at grade. The project eliminates a curb cut along Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway creating a safer pedestrian experience. The project will also dedicate land to the right-of-way to facilitate the County’s plan to include a new right turn lane and a new bike lane along Page Mill Road to improve bike safety. 18.23.090 Air Quality The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odor or toxic air. Future uses are required to comply with these performance standards. 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 1. The proposed residential use does not include storage of hazardous materials. Attachment K South El Camino Real Design Guidelines 2755 El Camino Real 16PLN-00464 The South El Camino Real Design Guidelines are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments along South El Camino Real. The purpose of the guidelines is to primarily to provide a set of guiding principles to anticipate, evaluate, and encourage appropriate development. The guidelines are intended to create a dynamic mixed-use corridor that serves the diverse needs of the City and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users and for abutting neighbors and businesses. South El Camino Real Guideline Project Consistency Section 2.2 Pedestrian Oriented Nodes, Section 2.2.1., California Avenue Area District Vision: Development in the California Avenue Segment of El Camino Real should reinforce the area's origin as an historical node with an urban, pedestrian-oriented design approach that takes advantage of California Avenue's relatively high levels of pedestrian activity.  New Buildings should front El Camino Real with prominent facades. Street level facades should have numerous pedestrian amenities.  Renovations of existing buildings should support the area as an activity node with carefully- conceived pedestrian amenities, and improved materials and signage. The proposed project is a new building along El Camino Real and includes a prominent entrance area at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill. The project includes balconies and windows facing El Camino Real though few are on the ground floor due to the proposed design. The project includes low planter walls that can also serve as seating areas as well as a new, sheltered bus stop. New street trees provide improvements to the pedestrian experience along the right-of-way. Section 2.2.1.2 California Avenue Area Strategic Sites: Page Mill Road/El Camino Real Corner. Buildings should feature a prominent corner to anchor the large-scale intersection. The El Camino Real frontage should feature extensive windows, as well as pedestrian amenities such as an arcade or canopy, seating, and planters. Valley Transit Authority Transit Center at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real/Former Nursery site. Existing park-and-ride use should be incorporated into a more intensive use of the site that would take advantage if the prominent location. A mixed-use building with structured/subsurface parking would be desirable. Aggregation of adjacent underutilized parcels such should be encouraged. The El Camino Real frontage at this site features planters and includes a canopy around the entrance area. The design also includes low planter walls that could serve as seats as well as an improved bus stop shelter with bench. The design does not include extensive windows, an arcade; more extensive windows at the ground floor would be more consistent with the guidelines. Consistent with the recommendations for this specific lot, this is a more intensive use of the site. Although a mixed-use building was identified as being desirable, mixed-use buildings have been proposed on this site and were not approved. Council has expressed an interest in encouraging more residential use at this site given the proximity to existing offices (PAS and SRP) and transit. Parking is subsurface, consistent with the guideline. Aggregation of adjacent parcels is unlikely given the existing active uses of adjacent sites. Section 2.2.2.1 Barron-Ventura Area District Vision; 2.2.2.2 Barron-Ventura Area Strategic Sites; 2.2.3: Triangle Area; 2.2.3.1 Triangle Area District Vision; 2.2.3.2 Strategic Sites (Triangle Properties) Not Applicable Section 2.3 Corridor Areas Not Applicable Section 3.1.1 Effective Sidewalk Width: In order to create a 12-foot effective sidewalk width along El Camino Real, buildings should be set back from the El Camino Real property line sufficient to maintain 12 feet of effective sidewalk width, inclusive of the existing width of the public sidewalk (measured from the back-of-curb to the building face). The project provides an effective 12 foot sidewalk width, consistent with this policy. Note that the building is set back further in accordance with guidelines for exclusively residential projects. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.2 Sidewalk Setback Design: The design of the sidewalk setback should create an urban "downtown" character. The sidewalk must be at least 12 feet wide, typically paved continuously from curb to building face. The sidewalk area should feature amenities such as street trees with tree grates, planters, benches and removable cafe furniture. Tree wells with ADA-compatible metal grates should be consistently located within the effective sidewalk area adjacent to the buildings. Street trees with grates are provided both on El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The bus stop is being relocated and improved along the El Camino Real frontage to provide covered seating for bus/shuttle users. A small courtyard area at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino Real provides low planter walls for seating and short- term bicycle parking. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.3 Build-to lines: Buildings should be built up to the sidewalk to reinforce the definition and importance of the street. It is recommended that buildings be designed with "build-to" lines, where the building mass/façade is built up to the setback line continuously, except for articulation such as doorways, recessed window bays, small plazas, driveways, and small parking areas to the sides of buildings. Where the facade is set back from the built-to line, low walls and hedges are encouraged to maintain the continuity of the streetscape. The project is not built up to the sidewalk; however, the project meets the guidelines under Section 7 for exclusively residential projects. The guidelines for exclusively residential projects require that the build-to line be set back 20 to 24 feet from El Camino Real. Landscaping and an open entrance courtyard area at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real help to maintain the continuity of the streetscape both along the frontage and along the street side yard facing Page Mill Road. Sufficient sidewalks as well as street trees improve the streetscape in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.3a: On parcels located in node areas, a minimum of seventy-five percent of the El Camino Real frontage must be comprised of building mass built up to the build-to/setback line. More than 75 percent of the El Camino Real frontage is built up to the build-to/setback line of 20-24 feet. The project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.3b: On parcels located in corridor areas, a minimum of fifty percent of the El Camino Real frontage must be comprised of building mass built up to the build- to/setback line. Not Applicable Section 3.1.4 Corner Parcels: For corner parcels, the building should be built up to the setback line in order to define the corner. The remaining portion of the side street frontage should include features such as low walls, trellises and hedges to continue the street wall. The main entrance is located at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. The building is built up to the exclusively residential setbacks at this corner and provides a well-defined entrance area with low planter wall seating and landscaping. Along the side street, low walls with landscaped planters provide privacy for the residential units while still defining the streetscape. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.4a: In node areas, the building should continue at the side street setback line for a minimum of fifty percent of the side street setback property frontage The side street setback for exclusively residential used is between 8-12 feet for the first 50 feet and 16 feet thereafter. The project is located between 8-12 feet from the property line along Page Mill Road and then transitions further back as it transitions to the adjacent development. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.5 Minimum Height: Buildings should have a minimum height of 25 feet in order to provide a presence in scale with El Camino real. The proposed building is 50 feet tall; similar to the height of adjacent buildings. The project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.6 Entries: All buildings should have entries facing El Camino Real. Recessed entries that provide space for seating and gathering are encouraged. The entrance faces the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The entrance area includes landscaping and provides low planter walls that also serve as temporary seating area. Although this area could include more seating to better serve as a "gathering space" the proposed space is appropriate for the exclusively residential use given the high-volume traffic at this intersection. The project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.7. Increased setback: Increased setbacks are permitted only if the additional setback provides a public amenity such as a wider sidewalk, outdoor seating or outdoor dining. If a building is to be set back beyond the recommended dimension, the setback should not exceed 20 feet so that a comfortable pedestrian environment and well defined streetscape is established. Low walls should be used to define streetscape along the edge of the increased setback. The majority of the project is set back 20-24 feet along El Camino Real in accordance with Section 7 of the guidelines, which addresses exclusively residential projects. The majority of the building is set up to the 20- 24 foot build to a line. A small portion of the frontage is dedicated to an activated corner with the entrance to the building, landscaping, low walls to define the courtyard entrance area. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.8 Relationship to context: New buildings should relate to and compliment surrounding buildings and street frontages. Projects should relate to adjacent buildings with complimentary building orientations and compatible landscaping Most of the building is set back approximately 20 feet or more from the adjacent residences to provide space between the existing adjacent sites and the project site. This is also designed so that the building is built up to the recommended street setbacks in order to define the streetscape. The new building is similar in height to the existing adjacent buildings. Mature landscaping has been provided on adjacent residences and new landscaping is proposed along the streetscape and interior lot lines. This landscaping would be compatible with adjacent landscaping. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.1 Limited Driveway Access From El Camino Real: New developments should minimize driveways and curb cuts to reduce impacts on El Camino Real traffic flow and on-street parking. Where curb cuts are unavoidable, width should be minimized, and their impact lessened by extending the sidewalk paving material across the driveway. Although the project includes driveway access from El Camino Real, this would not be a change from existing conditions at the project site; which already include a curb cut to access the existing parking lot on the site. The curb cut along Page Mill Road will be removed. Staff explored options for the driveway in coordination with transportation and determined that maintaining the driveway on El Camino Real was preferred for traffic flow. The curb cut for this drive aisle is the minimum necessary to accommodate access. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.2.2 Shared driveways: Where two parking lots abut and it is possible for a curb cut and driveway to serve several properties, owners are strongly encouraged to enter into shared access agreements. The agreements must include deed restrictions so that the shared access is transferred to future owners Not applicable; the driveways for adjacent sites could not be shared with the proposed project. Section 3.2.3 Side Street Driveway Access: Where possible, driveway access to frontage properties should be from intersecting side streets Although the proposed project includes access to and from El Camino Real; the adjacent side street is also a major thruway rather than a smaller side street. Transportation evaluated traffic flow options and indicated that maintaining the access along El Camino Real rather than Oregon Expressway was preferred. Section 3.2.4 Alley Access: Properties with rear alleys are strongly encouraged to have all vehicle access from the alley. No new curb cuts are recommended for properties where rear alley access is available Not applicable; there are no alleys adjacent the project site. Section 3.2.5 Limitation on parking Lot frontage: Surface parking areas, including driveways, should not occupy more than 50 percent of a property frontage along El Camino real, and continuous parking lot frontage may not exceed 120 feet. The project includes parking primarily below grade and the access driveway does not occupy more than 50 percent of the frontage along El Camino Real. Access to the garage and at grade parking would not be visible from El Camino Real or Page Mill Road. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.2.6 Landscape Treatment of Parking Setback: The landscape setback for surface parking areas should be planted with trees and shrubbery that provide a strong visual edge along the street. Trees should be spaced no less than 20 feet on center to achieve a canopy effect. Low walls and shrubs can also provide an effective way to screen the lower portion of parked cars from the sidewalk. Not applicable. Only four parking spaces are provided at grade and these parking spaces are not visible from the street. The perimeter of the site is landscaped with trees to provide a visual buffer and greenery. Section 3.2.7 Ample Landscaping: landscaping such as trees, shrubs, vines, or groundcover should permeate parking areas. Open parking areas should have a 6-foot landscape buffer along adjacent properties. Every six spaces should be separated by 4-foot minimum width landscape "fingers" planted with trees. Landscaping is provided along the property line. Only four parking spaces are proposed. Therefore landscape fingers are not necessary. Section 3.2.8 Architectural Elements: Architectural elements such as pergolas, arcades and low fences can further enhance the function and appearance of parking areas. Care should be taken to maintain sight lines within surface parking areas, with landscaping no higher than 30 inches in height. Parking is primarily below grade. Landscaping at the entrance maintains the line-of-sight triangle and provides only low shrubs or trees with a canopy taller than 10 feet to avoid line of site concerns. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.2.9 Easily Understood Wayfinding: Parking lots should be arranged so that drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians can find their ways easily. Generously scaled pathways should traverse parking areas so that pedestrian access is clear, safe, and pleasant. The grade level drive aisle and guest parking is located in an easily accessible area and all bicycle parking and pedestrian access is provided at grade. The four parking spots at grade level have easy, immediately adjacent access to the lobby and bike parking area. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.2.10 Pedestrian Passageways: Pedestrian passageways leading from rear parking areas to the El Camino Real sidewalk are encouraged. Passageways should be animated with features that provide interest such as windows, trellises, benches and planting. The porte cochere that leads to the rear parking is also easily accessible for pedestrians and bicyclists. However, urban forestry has recommended adding climbing vines to the exterior of the porte cochere. Landscaping is provided between the adjacent property and the proposed access from El Camino Real. Section 3.2.11 Shared Use Agreements: Property owners are encouraged to enter into agreements for the shared use of parking spaces. Where peak demand differs and spaces can be shared, the number of required spaces could be reduced at the discretion of the City, as permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. Where peak demand is effectively the same, the required number of spaces should still be provided, but by agreement, access between parking lots can be "shared" allowing people visiting one business to remain parked and walk to other businesses in the area. Not applicable; the proposed project does not include multiple uses to allow for shared parking. Immediately adjacent uses are similarly residential so shared use of those parking spaces would not necessarily be appropriate. Section 3.3.1 Usable Amenities: Landscape and hardscape features should not just be visually appealing, but also function as open space amenities to be used and enjoyed. Open Spaces such as plazas, seating areas and activity areas should be located at building entries, along or near well-travelled pedestrian routes to encourage frequent and spontaneous use. Amenities should be functional as well as visually appealing, with seating, tables, canopies and covering trellises. Landscape and hardscape features create privacy for the residential use but also provide a relationship with the street. Although the project open space (other than landscaping) is not located on the ground level along well traveled pedestrian routes, the common space is appropriately designed given the high-volume traffic at this intersection. The amenity space is functional as well as visually appealing, with seating, a BBQ, a fireplace, and landscaping. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.3.2 Site Landscaping: Landscaping should permeate the site, creating "outdoor rooms." The site plan should treat the site as an integrated building and landscape composition, rather than a building surrounded by obligatory strips of landscape buffer. Parking areas, spaces between buildings and property edges should be designed with the same care that is given to prominent areas. Given the size of the site and required setbacks, minimal space is available for creating "outdoor rooms." However, the applicant has provided required landscaping and created room for a new bus stop as well as a pet area along the property boundaries. Landscaping along the frontage contributes to an inviting corner space leading to the entrance of the building. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.3.3 Property Edges: Property edges and spaces between buildings should be designed with the same care that is given to prominent areas. Consideration has been given to all sides of the property; however, staff would recommend increased greenery on multiple sides to further reduce massing. Section 3.3.4 Screening: All mechanical equipment should be screened from view from all public right-of-ways, pedestrian paths and adjacent residences. Screens should be designed to be consistent with the building architecture in form, material and detail, as well as the site's landscape elements. With the exception of the transformer, all mechanical equipment is well screened. The applicant has explored multiple locations for the transformer and has located as far from El Camino Real as feasible. Although further screening of the transformer from Page Mill would be desirable; the required eight feet of clearance in front of the transformer is required. Section 3.3.5 Low Walls: Low walls should be used for screening parking areas and mechanical equipment, for providing spacial definition and for providing seating areas near entries. Low walls provide spacial definition; creating privacy for residential units while still maintaining a connection with the streetscape. It can also be used for seating along the frontages and adjacent the site entrance. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.3.6 Materials: Wall materials should be consistent and compatible with building materials. High quality, durable materials such as masonry, cement, stucco and decorative metal railing is encouraged. The project uses high quality building materials and materials for the low walls for planters throughout the project site. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.3.7 Paving: Accent paving at plazas, seating areas, driveway entries and pedestrian pathways is strongly encouraged. Internal streets and drives are encouraged to use pavers and other accent paving to minimize impervious surface and for visual appearance. Although the project does not include accent paving for the driveway entry; which could be an improvement, the project does include accent paving at the site entrance to improve and activate the corner. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. 3.3.8 Cooperative Design Approach: A cooperative, rather than defensive design approach is encouraged when adjacent uses are compatible. As more properties engage in a cooperative design approach, areas will feel more like a neighborhood or district, as opposed to a collection of individual projects, and will experience more efficient and effective pedestrian and vehicle circulation. The project does not necessarily include a cooperative design approach; although this approach is somewhat difficult given the existing adjacent property design. However, one consideration would be a new walkway from the project site and through the open courtyard at the adjacent senior living center. This would provide a further shortcut to adjacent transit and encourage a cooperative design approach. 3.3.9 Privacy of Adjacent residential uses: Privacy of existing residential properties must be protected through screening and landscaping. Fencing, shrubbery, trellises and high windows should be used to protect views into residential properties. Fencing along the property line and screening trees help to protect views into residential properties. The common deck area also provides landscaping along the northeastern side facing the Silverwood condominiums to allow use of the deck without creating privacy concerns for adjacent residences. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.1.1 Rear daylight plane: Buildings abutting established residential areas shall have a rear daylight plane. For buildings abutting established residential areas, no structure except for television and radio antennas, chimneys and flues, shall extend above or beyond a daylight plane measured five feet above the rear property line and an angle of forty-five degrees (consistent with zoning regulations). Not applicable. Although the adjacent use along the rear of the property is residential; the site is not zoned residential. The adjacent property is a PC zone and the use of the site is high density and three levels. The building on the project site is set back further than the building on the adjacent property (10 feet) and no daylight plane is required for that adjacent property. The new ordinance would require that the daylight plan match those on adjacent properties (consistent with what is already required on PF Zoned properties). Section 4.1.2 Side and Front Daylight Planes-No requirement: it is recommended that buildings in the south El Camino Real area not to be required to have front and side daylight planes (this is a proposed modification to current zoning regulations). The project does not include a front or side daylight plane, consistent with the proposed zoning development standards. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.1.3 Reinforce the definition of the street: Building mass should reinforce the definition and importance of the street. Buildings shall conform to the build-to lines as outlined in Section 3 of the design guidelines to create a consistent streetwall. Not applicable. The project follows setbacks consistent with Section 7 of the design guidelines, which include different build-to lines for exclusively residential projects. Section 4.1.4 Building Composition: Building mass should be articulated to reflect a human scale, both horizontally and vertically. Examples of such building elements include articulated facades, corner elements, inset windows, highlighted entry features and prominent cornices and rooflines. There is a primary entry feature that reinforces the definition of the street and provides a human scale and easy access for pedestrians and bikers in particular. Some variation is provided along all sides of the building and balconies help to further break up the massing. Urban forestry has recommended that greenery, such as trellises/green walls be used further to break up the massing and provide further visual interest. Section 4.1.5 Articulated facades: Base, Body and Roof: In order to create a cohesive streetscape, building facades should be articulated with a building base, body and rood or parapet edge. This creates a shared point of reference that allows different buildings to relate to each other, regardless of individual architectural styles or approaches. The proposed project includes a canopy and landscaping at the ground level to define the base of the building. The body and roof could use further definition. Section 4.1.6 Orientation: Buildings facing El Camino Real should be oriented parallel to the El Camino Real right-of- way to create a cohesive, well-defined streetscape. The project entrance opens to the corner to better define the corner, consistent with the guidelines. The building parallels both El Camino Real and Page Mill Road with a well-defined entrance. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.1.7 Corners: Corners should be addressed with special features such as prominent entries, massing and architectural elements. As noted above, a well-defined entrance at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino Real is provided. This is set apart through canopies, landscaping, low walls, and special paving materials. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.1.8 Expression of Use: Building forms should be articulated as an expression of the building use. For example, the various uses in a mixed-use building should be apparent through the pattern or scale of entries and windows, and through building elements such as arcades, awnings and balconies. The project is exclusively residential and balconies, windows and a large deck provide eyes on the street to show evidence of habitation. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.2.1 Relations of entries to the street: Buildings should have entries directly accessible and visible from El Camino Real. Buildings with the main entry on the side should include architectural elements that make the entry visible from El Camino Real and include a generously proportioned sidewalk from the street to the entry. In multi-use buildings, each building use and ground floor tenant space should have at least one functional entrance directly visible and accessible from the street. This exclusively residential building includes a clear entrance at the main intersection corner and generously proportioned sidewalks. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.2.2 Architectural expression of building entries: Entries should be marked by architectural features that emphasize their importance. Features such as tall building features, projecting overhangs, special lighting, awnings and signage can signify the location and importance of an entry. The entrance is clearly marked by a large projecting overhang and signage. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.3.1 Façade transparency: Building facades should animate the street, providing visual interest to passers-by. "Transparency" means that one can see or have a sense of what is behind a building façade, creating an interesting and lively street face. The façade transparency could be improved, particularly along El Camino Real. However, it should be noted that windows along the El Camino Real frontage would show views into bicycle parking and a storage closet; which may not be desirable. Improved transparency into the bicycle shop may be more desirable though. Section 4.3.2 Wall Openings: Transparent doors and windows must extend at least 75% of ground floor facades facing El Camino Real or side streets, and 50% of second floor facades. Facades should have ample, articulated doors and windows to create visual interest and allow one to see inside. No more than 20% of window space may be covered by window signs. As outlined in the staff report, this project is not consistent with this guideline. However, the guideline appears to be oriented toward a commercial retail or office use rather than an exclusively residential use where transparency of this scale may not be as desirable. Section 4.3.3 Glazing: Glazing should not prevent one from seeing inside a building. The use of reflective or dark-tinted glass is discouraged, especially at ground level, because it prohibits transparency and lacks the visual interest of clear window openings. The project includes glazing in some locations on the ground floor. However, this seems appropriate in some locations based on the use. Staff will look to the architectural review board to provide further guidance on whether the project should be improved for better consistency with this guideline. Section 4.3.4 Solar Control Devices: Solar control devices should not interfere with the transparency of a building façade. Awnings and deep overhangs are appropriate because they can provide protection from the elements and enliven facades without obstructing views into and out of buildings or obscuring the pattern of openings. Sunscreens that mask windows and other facade articulation are not appropriate because they detract from the transparency of the facade and can mask articulations which provide a sense of scale. Not applicable; solar control devices are not proposed. Section 4.3.5 Expression of Habitation: Residential or mixed-use residential projects should incorporate elements that signal habitation such as entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies that are visible to people on the street. This residential project includes elements that signal habitation, including entrances, balconies, and a deck. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.3.6 Design consistency on all facades: All exposed sides of a building should be designed with the same level of care and integrity. Buildings should be attractive and visually engaging from all sides, unless in a zero lot-line condition. The project considers all sides of the building, making them attractive and visually engaging. However, improvements could be made to increase articulation through use of greenery or other methods, consistent with urban forestry’s recommendations. Section 4.3.7 Architecturally Valid Details: Architectural details and features should be architecturally valid, not just decorative. Features should be related to the building's structure, function and/or engineering, rather than "tacked on" or arbitrary. The project does not include "tacked on" features. All balconies, windows, and other details of the façade are architecturally valid. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.3.8 Articulation and Depth: Building elevations should have variation and depth, rather than a false front treatment. Varied massing, projections and recesses can be used to create a sense of articulation and depth. Structural elements such as columns, parapets, rooflines and window fenestration can inform building design, as can functional elements such as location of entries, circulation spaces and special rooms. The building design includes varied massing and recesses to create articulation. The roofline could be improved to provide further articulation; however, overall the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.3.9 Rhythm and Scale: Building facades should be designed to have a rhythm and pattern measured according to human movement and scale. Architectural elements such as expressed structural bays and individual display windows (as opposed to continuous bands of glazing) can contribute to the rhythm and pattern of the facade, creating visual interest and an inviting pedestrian environment. Vertical proportions of doors, windows and projections should achieve human scale. Doors and windows achieve human scale and the project does not include continuous bands of glazing. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.3.10 Street Frontage Character: The street frontage should have continuous ground floor commercial uses characterized by display windows, recessed entries, and amenities such as arcades, awnings and seating areas. Grade-level and partially subgrade parking should be fronted with habitable building space such as storefront and building lobbies. The building lobby leads out to the main intersection corner and is clearly defined. The project is exclusively residential and therefore does not include ground floor commercial uses. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.4.1 Amenities: Building design should offer amenities to users and the public such as protection from the elements and places for people to gather or retreat. Elements such as arcades, balconies, awnings, roof gardens and seating areas enhance the user's experience and provide architectural interest. The project includes a clear entrance with a green canopy above as well as an improved, covered bus stop bench and cover to protect transit users from the elements. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.4.3 Disabled Access: Disabled access should be seamlessly incorporated into the building design. Facilities should be designed to provide inviting access that all users will want to use. Disabled access is seamlessly incorporated into the design. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.4.4 Integral to Building Structure and Use: Amenities and functional requirements should be integrated into the overall project design. For example, awnings should be individually placed in bays and over windows, as opposed to a continuous horizontal awning that ignores building structure or use. Code and functional requirements such as life safety, disabled access, servicing and security provisions should blend into the overall design, rather than appearing added on as an afterthought. Awnings and disabled access seemed blended into the overall design rather than added as an afterthought. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.4.5 Screening of Service, Trash and Utility areas: Service, trash and utility areas should be screened or enclosed in structures that are consistent with the building design, in terms of materials and detailing. These are provided in the basement and will be wheeled out to a designated area at the front of the property for pickup and wheeled back down by property management. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.5.1 Flat roofs and parapets encouraged: Flat roofs with parapets are strongly encouraged. Gabled and hip roofs are generally discouraged except when mixed use or residential projects are reflecting an appropriate residential character based on surroundings or adjacent building forms. Although the project includes a parapet, as is encouraged, more articulation could be provided in the roofline to better reflect similar roofs at the two adjacent properties. Section 4.5.2 Parapet Design: Parapets should be provided to articulate flat roofs and hide roof mounted equipment. Parapets should have strong cornice detailing to provide scale and visual interest. A parapet roof is provided to hide HVAC equipment. However, strong cornice detailing does not appear to be provided. Section 4.5.3 Functional Integrity of roofline: Roofs and architectural elements should have functional integrity and should not be used primarily to create a "style" or "image." False roof structures such as mansards are strongly discouraged A false roof is not provided. The parapet hides HVAC equipment, providing a functional use. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. 4.5.4 Roof Lines Consistent with Building and Context: Roof Lines and roof shapes should be consistent with the design and structure of the building itself as well as with roof lines of adjacent buildings. The roof line is consistent with the proposed style of the building, which has a more modern appearance; however, it is inconsistent with adjacent rooflines. Section 4.5.5 Roof Forms Reflect Façade Articulation: Roof forms should reflect the façade articulation and building massing, as opposed to a single-mass roof over an articulated façade. The proposed roof could be improved to provide better articulation. Section 4.5.6 Roof Materials: Roof materials should reflect the character and use of the buildings. Highly reflective or brightly colored roof materials are strongly discouraged. The project uses roof material that reflects the character of the building. No bright colors are used. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.5.7 Screening or Rooftop Mechanical Equipment: Rooftop Mechanical equipment should be screened with either an equipment screen or penthouse. The Screen or penthouse should have a material and form similar to the building. The project includes HVAC equipment on the roof that is screened by a parapet. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.8.1 Materials Integrity and Durability: Exterior Building material and finishes should convey a sense of integrity, permanence and durability. The selection of appropriate materials and finishes has a powerful impact on the perception of quality. The project uses high quality building materials (See materials board). Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.8.2 Mix of Materials: Juxtaposition of contrasting materials, such as masonry and glass, can create interest when carefully integrated. Thoughtful attention should be given to the selection of the full range of materials in a project--from the wall finishes, paving and roofing to window frames and door hardware. The project uses quality materials and uses appropriate materials for windows, doors, and paving finishes. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. 4.8.3 Materials Reflect Articulation of Building Elements: Change in materials should be used to articulate building elements such as base, body parapets caps, bays, arcades and structural elements. Change in materials should be integral with building facade and structure, rather than an application. Materials should not change at outside corners or in the same plane of the facade. The project includes changes in color and material along different planes of the façade to create visual interest. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 5, Signage Not Applicable. Signage is not currently proposed as part of the project; although the minimal signage being considered is shown for reference purposes. Any specific future signage proposed would be required to meet all of the guidelines under Section 5. Section 6, Renovations and Façade improvements Not applicable. The project is a new building; there is no existing building on the project site to renovate or otherwise improve. Section 7.1 El Camino Real Residential Setback: Exclusively residential projects are required to be setback between 20 to 24 feet from the El Camino Real curb. The majority of the project is built to approximately 21- 22 feet, 3inches from the El Camino Real Curb. Only the entrance area, which provides an open, pedestrian friendly area to define the corner is set back slightly further. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.1.2 El Camino Real Setback Design: The 20-foot El Camino Real setback on exclusively residential buildings shall include an effective sidewalk measuring at least twelve feet wide, lined by double rows of trees. Low screen walls and shrubbery may be used to create privacy between the sidewalk and adjacent residences. The project provides a 12' effective sidewalk width and includes street trees and low screen planter walls to define the sidewalk. Vegetation screening is also provided between property lines. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.1.3 El Camino Real Build-To Line: The 20 to 24- foot El Camino Real setback required for exclusively residential project shall also serve as the build to line. This will ensure that new projects contribute to the overall continuity of the streetscape. Buildings may only be set back from the setback/build-to line if the additional set- back provides amenities such as a wider sidewalk or outdoor seating. In no cases should an increased setback have a frontage greater than twenty feet. The majority of the project is built to approximately 21- 22 feet, 3inches from the El Camino Real Curb. Only the entrance area, which provides an open, pedestrian friendly area to define the corner is set back slightly further. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.1.4 Sidestreet setback: on corner properties, exclusively residential projects are required to be setback 16 feet from the sidestreet property line, with a sidewalk measuring at least eight feet wide lined by double rows of trees. Low screen walls and shrubbery may be used to create privacy between the sidewalk and adjacent residences. Stoops and porches may project eight feet into the setback. Although the project is not built 16 feet from the side street property line, guideline 7.2.1 encourages the project to be built up to 8-12 feet from the property line for corner properties. The project is consistent with this guideline. Low screen walls are used to define the sidewalk. Section 7.1.5 Parking: Parking must be located behind buildings or in underground or podium structures. Parking should be accessed from side streets where possible, and should have a minimum appearance on streetscape and function. The proposed parking garage entrance is not visible from El Camino Real or Page Mill Road. The at-grade parking spaces are also not visible from the public right-of-way. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline Section 7.2.1 50-foot "boulevard Character" Zone: The portion of a residential project within fifty feet of the El Camino Real setback shall have a prominent massing and presence appropriate to the scale and importance of the thoroughfare. Buildings in this zone should have a dignified character, with units grouped below a single or large scale roof forms. The side street build-to line within the Boulevard zone shall range from eight to twelve feet. The project provides an 8’7” setback along the Boulevard zone, consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.2. Transitional Zone: The portion of a residential project beyond the fifty-foot Urban Character Zone should be designed to provide a transition between the urban character of El Camino Real and the more residential character of adjacent neighborhoods. Buildings in this zone should transition from the scale of El Camino Real development to a scale compatible with adjacent existing residences. Row houses and apartments with balconies and stoops can provide an appropriate transition in many instances. Units may be grouped into a single building but should feature individual entries, porches and balconies. Where adjacent existing development is urban in character, this zone may take on a similarly urban character. Although the project does not transition to provide individual unit entrances, as outlined in this guideline, the project is consistent with the nature of the site. Adjacent uses along Page Mill Road are not low density residential neighborhoods. The adjacent use is similarly a high density residential use subject to PC zoning. In addition, the side street is a high traffic volume County thruway rather than a smaller, residential street. Therefore the project is appropriately designed based on the context of the site. Section 7.2.3 Side street Build-to lines: On Corner properties, the side street build-to line within the Boulevard Zone shall be 8 to 16 feet from the property line. The side street build-to line within the transitional zone shall be 16 feet. This will ensure that the corner is will defined and that a transition is made to existing adjacent residential properties. A request may be made for a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for the 8' to 16' setback. The portion of the project within the boulevard zone is located 8'7" from the property line, consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.4 El Camino Real entryway: Exclusively residential buildings shall each have a prominent pedestrian entryway facing El Camino Real. The entryway should include elements such as overhangs, awnings, columns, low walls, steps and ramps to create a strong presence. The proposed project includes an entrance at the corner of the site. The entry includes a green canopy as well as low planter walls and decorative pavers to define the entrance and create a strong presence. The change in material at the entrance also helps to define the entrance. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.5 Entry design: Building and unit entries should be the most prominent feature of the façade. The importance of the entry should be emphasized through unique massing, level of detail, and materials. Design should be compatible with the overall building design. The project is designed such that the most prominent feature is the entrance at the corner at El Camino Real and Page Mill. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.6 Entry Scale: Building and unit entries should have a scale appropriate to the context and number of units provided access. Entries facing El Camino Real, providing access to a number of units, should have an appropriately prominent scale and high level of design. Side street and internal entries with access to a smaller number of units or just one unit, should have a more residential scale. The entry facing el Camino Real provides access to a number of units and, in turn, is prominent in scale and includes a high level of design. Other access points are more pedestrian in scale. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.7 Active Street frontage: Residential Project should maintain an active ground-floor street frontage. Uses such as lobbies, community rooms, and habitable outdoor terraces and plazas should be situated along ground floor street frontages. Windows and doorways should be designed to create an interesting streetscape. The lobby has been revised to be provided at grade and a large entrance area activates the corner. The entrance includes doorways to the bike kitchen and bicycle parking as well as the lobby. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.8 Architectural Character and Scale: The architecture which fronts El Camino Real in the Boulevard Zone should be substantial in character and scale with a strong presence. Buildings should have a dignified character, and should address the street to provide a strong street edge. Building and detail scale should be appropriate to the boulevard-scale of El Camino Real. The proposed project within the boulevard zone is built up to the recommended build-to line to define the streetscape. The detail scale is appropriate to the boulevard scale of El Camino Real. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.9 Roof Forms: Flat roofs with parapets are strongly encouraged along El Camino Real to provide a cohesive appearance. Roofs in the transitional zone may be either flat or gabled, depending on the neighborhood contact, and should be articulated to indicate individual units. Parapets on flat roofs should be articulated with well-designed details. Roofs over corners and major entries should be more strongly articulated for architectural legibility. The proposed project includes a flat roof, consistent with the recommendation of this guideline. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.10 Façade Articulation: Building massing should be articulated to create a strong rhythm in the building facades and should emphasize groupings of units. Typically, facades in the urban character zone will emphasize groups of units, while facades in the Transitional zone will emphasize individual units. Facades should be articulated with bays, terraces, balconies, awnings, stoops and recessed openings to provide visual interest and scale. The façade along both the El Camino Real right-of-way and the Page Mill Road right-of-way are articulated by balconies to provide visual interest and scale. And emphasize individual units. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.11 Partially-Recessed or Underground Garage treatment: Where parking is provided in a partially- submerged/split-level garage, the ventilated garage façade should be completely screened with architectural and landscape devices. Ventilation opening size should be minimized and screened with decorative grillwork and landscaping. Stoops should extend beyond the garage facade, particularly on side street frontages, and be spaced no more than 50 feet apart. Screening of the podium should not rely entirely on landscaping. Exposed podiums may not extend more than 5 feet above grade along any frontage. The proposed project is raised four feet above grade at the residences. However, the entrance is provide at grade, consistent with staff’s recommendations. Landscaping and low walls screen the podium along the streetscape. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.12 privacy of street-level residences: Residences at or near street level should be designed to ensure privacy of the residents from passersby. Low walls (no more than four feet in height), hedges and grade changes should be used to create privacy while maintaining a relationship to the street. Where the grade change (including partially submerged parking) is used, the raised portion should be designed to read as the base of the building, with an architectural treatment consistent with the rest of the building. The project includes a grade change, along with low walls and landscaping to create privacy between the ground level residences and the public right-of-way. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. 16 15 82 83 84 14 85 19 20 1086 87 318 13 12 21 11 88 Hewlett Pack Building 4C Building 3A VarianBuilding 3 Building 4 2 Building 4A 562 - Bldg 3 1B 1C 1A 1 2A Kendall Court Apartments 562 - Bldg 1 6 5 1 2 3 DayCare 3 4 F Molly Stone's Market County Courthouseand Jail North County Mental Health Center Fry's Electronics Gas Station #2 Bldg 5 Bldg 3 Bldg 4 Bldg 6 College Terrace Library Lot C-5 Parking Lot Bank ofthe West Building 2 Building 3 Building 4 Fire Station # 2 Bldg 2 Bldg 1 A B Building 6 Palo Alto Square2 Bldg 8 Bldg 7 Building 1 A Building 7 B California Station Country Sun PARKING GARAGE 10-670 ACORN HOUSE (CHILD CARE CENTER) 86 2 10-081 10-080 EV 2 UNIT 80 10-079EV 2UNIT 79 10-078 EV 2 UNIT 78 10-077 EV 2UNIT 77 10-076 EV 2 UNIT 76 10-075 EV 2UNIT 75 10-055 EV 2UNIT 55 10-074ESCONDIDO IIBARNESMIDRISE 10-072 EV 2 UNIT 72 10-073 EV 2UNIT 73 10-069 EV 2UNIT 69 10-068 EV 2UNIT 68 10-067 EV 2UNIT 67 10-066 EV 2UNIT 66 10-065 EV 2UNIT 65 10-064 EV 2UNIT 64 10-062 EV 2UNIT 6210-056 EV 2UNIT 56 10-057EV 2UNIT 57 10-059 EV 2UNIT 59 10-060EV 2UNIT 60 10-061 EV 2UNIT 61 10-058 EV 2UNIT 58 10-063ABRAMSMIDRISE 76S 10-042 EV 1UNIT 42 10-041 EV 1UNIT 41 10-040 EV 1UNIT 40 0-049 10-465STUDIO 6 10-470STUDIO 5 10-071EV 2UNIT 71 10-070 EV 2UNIT 70 10-63410-633 10-632 10-631 10-626 10-623 10-622 10-621 10-616 10-615 10-611 10-61210-613 10-624 10-60710-606 10-605 10-60410-603 10-602 10-601 10-519 10-515 10-511 10-507 10-503 10-439 10-435 10-431 10-427 10-41910-423 10-41510-411 10-403 10-407 10-37110-367 10-35910-363 10-35510-351 10-343 10-347 10-339 10-335 10-327 10-331 10-323 10-319 10-315 K J H G E B D C A 10-680MulberryHouse 1 Cameron Park Jerry Bowden Park John Boulware Park WallisPark Weisshaar Park Lot C-6 Lot C-7 Lot C-8 Lot C-9 Hansen Way Park Blvd Substation Train Station, California Avenue Matadero Well Substation Mayfield Park SC CountyCourthouseand Jail Hewlett Packard CPI CPI Stanford Palo AltoPlaying Fields 10' Path10' P ath Lot C-2 Lot C-1 Lot C-3 Parking Garage Lot C-4 Lot C-5 Garage Parking TH te Hill 1500 900 500 300 400 200 1200 600 800 Curtner Avenue Magnolia Dr South Cypress Lane Cowper Street Ramona Street Alma Street spar Court El Carmelo Avenue outh Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way ( P rivate ) Page Mill Road Hansen Way Hanover Street a Avenue Tippawingo St Julie Ct Matade r o Avenu e Chimalus Drive Kendall Avenue Whitsell Avenue Barron Avenue Magnolia Dr North La Donna Avenue Magnolia Drive Military Way Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way El Camino Real Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California Avenue Wellesley Street Princeton Street Oberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College AvenueWilliams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford Avenue El Ca min o Real Park Bo ule vard Park Avenue Leland Avenue Stanford Avenue Birch Street Ash Street Grant Avenue Sheridan Avenue Jacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard College Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield Lane Birch Street California Avenue Park Boulevard Nogal Lane Park Boulevard Washington AvenueStreet Colora do Av en ue S tre et Emerson Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado Avenue Alma Street Alma Street High Stre et Emerson Bryant Street Emerson Street Nevada Avenue North California Avenue Ramona Street High Street Oregon Expressway Ramona Street C olorad o A ve nu e Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Sedro Lane Peral Lane Madeline Ct Sheridan Avenue Lane 66 Lane 66 La Selva Drive Olmst e d Road El Dorado Avenue Page Mill Road lus Drive Abrams Court Barnes Court e y La n e t Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Pet Wellesley St Yale St Alma Street Birch Street This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Half Mile Radius from Cal Ave Caltrain Station VTA Lines 101, 102, 103, 182 El Camino Real Bus Routes (Rapid (522 VTA) and Local Routes (22 VTA)) Dumbarton Express Route and 104 Bus line Route VTA Caltrain Stations City Jurisdictional Limits Boundary Project Site - Parcel to be rezoned to PF (WH) 0' 800' 27 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l Pr o p o s e d Z o n e C h a n g e an d Pu b l i c T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Ar e a M a p CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2018-01-22 17:28:542755 ECR Zoning Map Amendment Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) December 19, 2017 Planning Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Chair Alcheck and Commissioners, We are pleased to announce that Alta Locale, the project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real, qualifi es for Conditional GreenTRIP Certifi cation based on the current proposed design and amenities dated November 17, 2017. Our evaluation demonstrates that Alta Locale meets GreenTRIP standards for the Town Center place type with daily household driving projected to be no more than 35 daily vehicle miles driven per household, a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit or less, and the provision of at least one traffi c reduction strategy. The project meets GreenTRIP bicycle parking standards with at least one secured bicycle parking space per unit, and guest bicycle parking for at least 20% of units. The project will also participate in GreenTRIP’s Transportation and Parking Survey for annual monitoring. Upon approval of these conditions, this project will join an esteemed group of certifi ed projects with low traffi c and excellent transportation amenities. Since 1997, TransForm has been working for world class public transportation and walkable communities in the Bay Area and beyond. In 2008, TransForm launched GreenTRIP, a certifi cation program for new residential development, focused on Traffi c Reduction and Innovative Parking. GreenTRIP certifi es projects that will allow new residents to drive less while increasing their mobility in a variety of ways. When residents have access to aff ordable homes close to services, jobs and transit, and developments are designed with traffi c reduction and innovative parking, there are benefi ts for all: • Increased household transportation savings. • Economic support for locally serving businesses. • Less freeway traffi c and fewer vehicle collisions. • Improved public health through increased walking and better air quality. • Greater demand and support of transit services. • Reduced greenhouse gas emissions, supporting compliance with SB375 and AB32. Alta Locale meets the GreenTRIP Certifi cation Standards for the “Town Center” place type. The Place Type is determined according to defi nitions set forth by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Station Area Planning Manual, 2007. GreenTRIP Certifi cation standards are designed according to these Place Types and tailored to create a feasible yet innovative standard. TRANSFORM | 436 14th Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 www.TransFormCA.org 510.740.3150 TRIP Green GreenTRIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE Marcial Chao Pyatok Architects Elizabeth Deakin University of California Berkeley Joe DiStefano Calthorpe Associates Adam Garcia Greenbelt Alliance Curt Johansen Kings River Community Partners, LLC Valerie Knepper Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Retired) Richard Lee Transportation Choices for Sustainable Communities Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute Kathleen Livermore Former, City of Alameda Pilar Lorenzana-Campo SV@Home Adam Millard-Ball University of California Santa Cruz John Moon Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Natalie Sandoval Urban Land Institute San Francisco Krute Singa Metropolitan Transportation Commission Robert Swierk Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Abby Thorne-Lyman Bay Area Rapid Transit Jeff rey Tumlin Nelson\Nygaard Aaron Welch Raimi + Associates Kate White California State Transportation Agency Jeff Wood The Overhead Wire The following describes how Alta Locale meets the criteria for GreenTRIP Certifi cation: 1. Alta Locale is projected to create less than 35 miles/household/day. Using a model created by the California Air Resources Board for estimating greenhouse gas emissions, we project that future households at Alta Locale will drive 49% less than the Bay Area regional average. The primary reasons for reduced driving are the project’s density, location, and proximity to transit. 2. Alta Locale will not exceed more than 1.5 residential parking spaces per unit and will provide secured and protected bicycle parking spaces on-site. The conceptual design of Alta Locale meets this standard by proposing 69 residential parking spaces for 57 units, or 1.2 spaces per unit. Fewer spaces provided for parking allow more resources to be spent on other community amenities. The project will also include 68 secured bicycle parking spaces and 16 guest bicycle parking spaces, which exceeds our requirements of 1.0 ratio for long-term and 0.2 ratio for short-term bicycle parking. 3. Alta Locale will provide at least 1 of 3 Traffi c Reduction Strategies for 40 years (Transit Passes, Carshare Memberships, and/or Unbundled Parking). Windy Hill Property Ventures will provide 100% unbundled parking. Unbundled parking separates the cost of parking from rent, and therefore residents who do not have vehicles will save money by not having to pay for a parking space that they are not using. Please refer to the attached 2-page Project Evaluation Report for a summary of the project’s benefi ts. You may also view Certifi cation guidelines here: bit.ly/GreenTRIPHowToGuide Since this project is still going through entitlement, we are awarding a conditional GreenTRIP Certifi cation. We will award a full certifi cation to Alta Locale upon city approval of fi nal entitlements, if those entitlements include the following project characteristics: 1. Build no more than 1.5 parking spaces per unit. 2. Provide one traffi c reduction strategy per the How-to-Guide. 3. Install no fewer than one secured residential bike parking space per unit. 4. Install publicly accessible guest bike parking spaces numbered at no fewer than 20% of units. Upon approval of these conditions, this project will join an esteemed group of GreenTRIP-certifi ed projects with low traffi c and excellent transportation amenities. For more information, please refer to our website at: www.GreenTRIP.org. Sincerely, Nina Rizzo GreenTRIP Planner, (510) 740-9340 124-28-049 132-37-024 132-37-072 132-37-049 132-37-048 132-37-046 132-37-045 132-37-044 132-32-047 132-38-072 132-37-047 132-37-064 132-31-078 124-14-001 124-14-002 124-14-003 124-14-019 124-14-020 124-14-021 124-14-022 124-14-027 124-14-028 124-14-029 124-14-050 124-14-024 132-17-071 132-17-084 132-17-082 132-17-072 132-31-071 132-31-042 132-17-060 124-14-065 124-14-064 124-14-063 124-14-062 124-14-061 124-14-042 124-14-041 124-14-04 124-14-031 124-14-043 124-14-030 124-14-044 124-14-045 124-20-017 124-20-018 124-14-067 124-14-068 124-14-069 124-14-070 132-17-061 132-17-048 137-02-023 137-02-086 142-20-010 137-02-019 137-02-020 137-02-091 137-02-024 137-02-016 137-02-029 137-02-030 137-02-031 137-01-108 137-01-097 137-01-098 137-01-099 137-01-151 137-01-107 137-01-096 137-01-095 137-01-094 137-01-093 137-01-091 137-01-109 137-35-001137-35-002 137-01-141 137-01-140 124-33-066 142-20-011 142-20-012 142-20-048 142-20-100137-01-110 137-01-145 137-01-088 137-01-089 137-01-130 132-36-068 132-36-077 137-01-129 137-01-087 124-32-045 124-32-048 124-32-049 124-32-019 137-01-074 137-01-075 137-01-125 137-01-113 137-01-070 137-01-069 137-01-143 137-01-142 137-01-104 137-01-102 137-01-103 137-01-034 137-01-035 124-32-012 137-01-086 137-01-146 137-01-147 124-32-046 124-32-047 137-01-078 137-34-001137-34-002137-34-003 137-34-004 137-34-005 124-33-056 124-33-047 124-33-046 124-33-065 124-33-043 124-33-035 124-33-036 124-33-042 124-33-037124-33-067 124-33-026 124-33-005 124-33-007 124-33-008 124-33-006 124-33-019 124-33-018 124-33-017 124-33-016 124-33-015 124-32-043 124-32-044 124-33-025 124-33-024 124-33-012 124-33-013 124-33-014 132-50-012 132-50-011 132-50-010 132-50-009 132-50-008 132-50-007 132-50-006 132-50-005 132-50-004 132-50-003 132-50-002 132-50-001132-51-001 132-51-013 132-51-014 132-51-015 132-51-016 132-51-017 132-51-018 132-51-019 132-51-020 132-51-021 132-51-022 132-51-023 132-51-024 132-51-012 132-51-011 132-51-010 132-51-009 132-51-008 132-51-007 132-51-006 132-51-005 132-51-004 132-51-003 132-51-002 124-33-061 124-33-062 132-37-073 132-37-004 132-37-003 132-37-005 132-37-006 132-37-007 132-37-008 132-37-015 132-37-067 132-37-009 132-37-041 132-37-040 132-37-039 132-37-038 132-37-034 132-37-029 132-37-028 132-37-027 132-37-026 132-37-037 132-37-036 132-37-035 132-37-025 132-37-030 132-37-052 132-37-033 132-36-087 132-36-084 132-36-031 132-37-056 132-37-063132-37-062 132-37-061 132-37-060 132-37-059 132-37-058 132-36-081 132-36-092 132-36-024 124-33-064 132-54-015 132-54-016 132-54-017 132-54-018 132-54-019 132-54-020 132-54-021 132-54-022 132-54-023 132-54-024132-54-025 132-54-026 132-54-027 132-54-028 132-54-029 132-54-030 132-54-031 132-54-032 132-54-033 132-54-014 132-54-013 132-54-012 132-54-011 132-54-010 132-54-009 132-54-008 132-54-007 132-54-006 132-54-005 132-54-001 132-54-002 132-54-003 132-54-004 132-54-034 132-54-035 132-54-036 132-54-037 132-54-038132-54-039 132-54-040 132-54-041 132-54-042 132-54-043 132-54-044 132-54-045 132-54-046 132-54-047 132-54-048 132-54-049 132-54-050 132-54-051 132-54-052 132-54-053 132-54-054 132-54-055 132-36-075 132-36-094 132-36-093 132-36-015 132-36-131 132-36-025 124-18-049 124-18-100 124-25-024 124-26-007 124-26-006124-26-004 124-26-005 124-27-001 124-27-050 124-23-058 124-26-025 124-18-101 124-19-098 124-19-063 124-19-062 124-19-061 124-19-099 124-19-089 124-19-064 124-19-003 124-19-001 124-19-002 124-19-055 124-19-054 124-19-053 124-19-052 124-19-049 124-19-048 124-19-047 124-19-046 124-19-042 124-19-044 124-19-043 124-19-041 124-19-045 124-19-116 124-19-005 124-19-006 124-19-007 124-19-111 124-19-040 124-18-096 124-18-098 124-18-097 124-18-099 124-19-008 124-19-112 124-19-038 124-19-033 124-19-032124-18-094 124-18-095 124-19-090 124-19-077 124-19-078 124-19-079 124-19-080 124-19-081 124-19-082 124-19-083 124-19-084 124-19-085 124-19-087 124-19-088 124-19-066 124-19-065 124-19-067 124-19-068 124-19-115 124-19-086 124-14-087 124-14-054 124-14-055 124-14-056 124-14-023 124-14-053 124-14-052 124-14-051 124-14-025 124-14-049 124-14-048 124-14-047 124-14-026 124-14-046 124-20-008 124-19-091 124-20-034 124-20-042 124-31-058 124-31-060 124-31-059 124-31-055 124-31-054 124-31-063 124-31-062 124-31-061 124-31-064 124-31-065 124-31-066 124-31-053 124-31-012 124-31-026 124-31-027 124-31-013 124-31-014 124-31-015 124-31-016 124-31-017 124-31-018 137-01-152 124-31-029 124-31-019 124-31-021 124-31-020 124-31-022 124-31-023 124-31-024 124-31-025 124-32-010 124-32-011 124-32-022 124-32-021 124-32-016 124-32-072 124-31-050 124-31-051 124-31-052 124-31-070 124-31-069 124-31-068 124-31-067 124-31-049 124-31-080 124-31-079 124-31-071 124-31-047 124-31-046 124-32-007 124-32-027 124-32-026 124-32-028 124-32-029 124-32-030 124-32-031 124-32-050 124-32-025 124-32-071 124-32-009 124-32-020 124-32-013 124-32-060124-32-061124-32-062 124-32-063124-32-065124-32-064 124-32-068124-32-067124-32-066 124-31-030 124-30-001 124-30-002 124-30-003 124-30-004 124-30-005 124-30-006 124-30-007 124-30-008 124-30-009 124-30-027 124-30-028 124-30-029 124-30-030 124-31-031 124-31-032 124-31-033 124-31-009 124-31-010 124-31-011 124-31-008 124-31-007 124-31-006 124-31-038 124-31-037 124-31-036 124-31-035 124-31-034 124-31-001 124-26-010 124-26-009 124-26-008 124-26-011 124-26-012 124-26-013 124-26-014 124-26-015 124-26-016 124-26-024 124-26-023 124-26-022 124-26-021 124-26-020 124-26-019 124-26-017 124-31-028 124-31-005 124-31-004 124-31-003 124-31-002 124-31-076 124-31-039 124-31-040 124-31-075 124-31-043 124-31-044 124-31-045124-31-072 124-31-083 124-26-018 124-27-002 124-27-003 124-27-005 124-27-018 124-27-017 124-27-016 124-27-015 124-27-014 124-27-013 124-27-012 124-27-011 124-27-010 124-27-009 124-27-008 124-27-007 124-27-006 124-27-031 124-27-032 124-27-049 124-33-059 124-33-055 124-33-027 124-33-001 124-33-028 124-33-029 124-33-030 124-33-023 124-33-022 124-33-021 124-33-020 124-32-051 124-32-035 124-32-036 124-32-037 124-32-038 124-32-039124-32-052 124-32-053 124-32-054 124-32-055 124-32-040 124-32-041 124-32-042 124-36-036 124-36-037 124-36-038 124-36-039 124-36-040 124-36-017 124-36-018124-36-019124-36-020124-36-021 124-36-022 124-29-008 124-29-017 132-31-072 132-31-081 132-31-065 132-31-074 124-36-035 124-36-034 124-36-033 124-36-032 124-36-031124-36-030 124-36-029124-36-028 124-36-027124-36-026 124-36-025124-36-024 124-36-023 124-36-016 124-36-015 124-36-014 124-36-013 124-36-012124-36-001 124-36-002 124-36-003 124-36-004 124-36-005 124-36-011 124-36-010 124-36-009 124-36-008 124-36-007 124-36-006 124-37-014 124-37-015 124-37-036 124-37-059 124-37-016124-37-013 124-37-035124-37-034124-37-033 124-37-056124-37-057124-37-058124-37-060124-37-061 124-37-017124-37-018124-37-019124-37-020 124-37-037124-37-038124-37-039124-37-040124-37-041 124-37-055124-37-054124-37-053124-37-052124-37-051 124-37-062 124-37-063124-37-064124-37-065 124-37-012124-37-011124-37-010124-37-009124-37-008 124-37-007124-37-006124-37-005 124-37-032124-37-031 124-37-030124-37-029 124-37-066124-37-067 124-37-068124-37-069 124-37-050124-37-049124-37-048124-37-047 124-37-042 124-37-043 124-37-044124-37-045124-37-046 124-37-028 124-37-027124-37-026124-37-025 124-37-004 124-37-024 124-37-003124-37-002124-37-021 124-37-022124-37-023 124-37-084124-37-085124-37-083124-37-082124-37-081124-37-080124-37-070124-37-071124-37-072 124-37-073124-37-074124-37-075124-37-076124-37-077 124-37-078 124-29-016 124-37-086 124-37-079 124-28-009 124-28-010 124-28-011 124-27-027 124-27-028 124-27-029 124-32-056 124-32-033 124-32-034 124-32-005 124-32-004 124-32-003 124-32-002 124-32-001 124-32-032 124-32-006 124-31-042 124-31-041 124-28-036 124-28-051124-28-012 124-28-013 124-28-014 124-28-015 124-28-016 124-28-017 124-28-008 124-28-050 124-28-021 124-28-022 124-28-020 124-28-018 124-28-019 124-28-030 124-28-032 124-28-034 124-28-035 124-28-029 124-28-028 124-28-053 124-29-004 124-29-005 124-29-007 124-28-003 124-29-022 124-29-021 124-29-002 124-29-001 124-28-004 124-28-045 124-28-052 124-28-056 124-28-031 124-28-027 124-27-022 124-27-021 124-27-038 124-27-039 124-27-040 124-27-041 124-27-042 124-27-043 124-27-044 124-27-045 124-27-046 124-27-047 124-27-048 124-27-023 124-27-024 124-27-025 124-27-026124-27-030 124-27-037 124-27-036 124-27-035 124-27-034 124-27-033 124-27-004 124-28-001 124-28-024 124-28-023 124-28-002 124-27-020 124-27-019 124-19-102 124-19-109 124-19-108 124-19-110 124-19-056 124-19-059 124-19-058 124-19-057 124-19-107 124-19-106 124-19-105 124-19-104 124-19-103 124-19-101 124-19-100 124-19-060 124-19-097 124-19-051 124-19-050 124-28-043 124-29-013 124-29-012 124-29-011 124-29-020 132-31-005 124-20-040 124-29-023 124-29-025 132-31-079 124-20-035 124-20-006 124-20-009 124-20-041 124-20-003 124-20-004 124-20-002 124-20-037 124-20-036 124-20-005 124-19-096 124-19-095 124-19-094 124-19-093 124-19-092 124-20-007 124-20-001 124-20-020 124-20-021 124-20-023 124-20-022 124-20-016 124-20-015 124-20-014 124-20-024 124-20-013 124-20-028 124-20-027 124-20-026 124-20-025 124-20-032 124-20-031 124-20-033 124-20-030 124-20-029 124-20-011 124-20-012 124-20-019 124-14-085 124-14-086 124-14-058 124-14-075 124-14-057 124-14-082 124-14-059 124-14-060 124-14-074 124-14-073 124-14-072 124-14-071 124-14-078 124-14-079 124-14-076 124-14-081 124-14-084 124-14-083 124-14-080 124-14-077 137-03-041 137-03-040 137-03-038 137-03-056 137-03-055 137-03-039 137-03-045 137 03 078 137-03-077 -003 137-33-004 137-33-005 137-03-054 137-03-057 137-03-096 137-03-044 137-03-047 137-03-046 137-03-053 137-03-052 137-03-051 137-03-048 137-03-049 137-03-050 137-03-013 137-03-014 137-03-015 137-03-089 137-03-007 137-03-008 137-03-018 137-03-019 137-03-020 137-03-021 137-03-022 137-03-023 137-02-088 137-03-012 137-03-009 137-03-011 137-03-010 137-04-018 137-04-011 137-04-012 137-04-013 137-04-014 137-04-015 137-03-093 137-03-059 137-03-058 137-03-031 137-03-032 137-04-016 137-04-017 137-03-024 137-03-028 137-03-030 137-03-029 137-03-025 137-03-027 137-03-026 137-03-006 137-03-005 137-03-004 137-03-001 137-03-002 137-03-092 137-02-001 137-02-081 137-02-082 137-02-083 137-02-040 137-02-041 137-02-042 137-02-002 137-02-003 137-02-004 137-02-005 137-02-039 137-02-038 137-02-037 137-02-036 137-02-035 137-02-034 137-02-033 137-02-090 137-02-089 137-02-028 137-02-027 137-02-026 137-02-006 137-02-025 137-04-023 137-04-022 137-04-021 137-04-020 137-04-019 137-02-073 137-02-075 137-02-077 137-02-078 137-02-079 137-02-080 137-02-043 137-02-045 137-02-044 137-02-052 137-02-072 137-02-071 137-02-070 137-02-069 137-02-068 137-02-067 137-02-074137-02-076 137-02-066 137-02-065 137-02-093 137-02-092 137-02-063 137-02-054 137-02-055 137-02-053 137-02-008 137-02-060 137-02-059 137-02-058 137-02-057 137-02-056 137-02-061 137-02-062 137-01-128 137-01-012 137-01-013 137-01-061 137-01-060 137-01-058 137-01-057 137-01-056 137-01-052 137-01-053 137-01-123 137-01-059 137-30-005 137-30-004137-30-003 137-30-002 137-30-001 137-01-116 124-30-017 137-01-121 137-01-006 137-01-007 137-01-126 137-01-014 137-01-015 137-01-016 137-01-065 137-01-064 137-01-063 137-01-062 137-01-051 137-01-050 137-01-049 137-30-006 137-01-138137-01-137 137-01-136 137-02-007 137-02-013 137-02-012 137-02-011 137-02-010 137-02-009 137-01-100 137-01-031 137-01-042 137-01-039 137-01-043 137-01-044 137-01-048 137-01-047 137-01-046 137-01-045 137-01-134 137-01-133 137-01-139 137-36-001 137-36-002 137-36-003 137-36-004 137-36-005137-36-006 137-36-007 137-36-008 137-01-036 137-02-015 137-02-014 137-01-101 137-01-037 137-01-038 137-01-004 137-01-003 137-01-002 124-30-012 124-30-014 124-30-016 124-30-015 137-01-112 137-01-024 137-01-132 124-35-003124-35-002124-35-001 124-24-016 124-24-015 124-24-014 124-24-013 124-24-012 124-24-051 124-24-053 124-24-052 124-23-013 124-23-012 124-25-051 124-25-050 124-25-049 124-25-048 124-25-003 124-25-002 124-25-001 124-25-004 124-25-005 124-25-047 124-25-046 124-25-006 124-25-045 124-25-044 124-24-019 124-24-020 124-24-017 124-24-018 124-23-002 124-23-003 124-23-004 124-23-005 124-23-006 124-23-007 124-23-008 124-23-009 124-23-010 124-23-011 124-23-001 124-23-016 124-23-017 124-23-018 124-23-019 124-23-023 124-23-024 124-23-021 124-23-071 124-23-073 124-23-074 124-23-020 124-25-007 124-25-060 124-25-059124-25-052 124-25-054 124-25-055 124-25-057 124-25-058 124-25-043 124-25-042 124-25-041 124-25-040 124-25-009 124-25-011 124-25-012 124-25-013 124-25-014 124-25-015 124-25-039 124-25-038 124-25-037 124-25-036 124-30-068 124-30-069 124-30-047 124-25-053 124-25-056 124-25-008 124-25-010 124-30-041 124-30-043 124-30-042 124-30-038 124-30-067 124-30-066 124-30-050 124-30-049 124-30-048 124-30-052 124-30-053 124-30-054 124-30-055 124-30-056 124-30-057 124-30-036 124-30-035 124-30-034 124-30-033 124-30-058 124-30-031 124-30-032 124-30-026 124-30-025 124-30-011 124-30-019 124-30-018 124-30-020 124-30-010 124-30-024 124-30-023 124-30-022 124-30-021 124-25-027 124-25-021 124-25-018 124-25-019 124-25-020 124-25-026 124-25-025 124-25-017 124-25-016 124-25-028 124-25-029 124-25-030 124-25-031 124-25-032 124-25-033 124-25-034 124-25-035 124-23-032124-23-035 124-26-003 124-26-002 124-26-001 124-23-034 124-25-022 124-23-033 124-25-023 124 23 025 124-23-036 124-23-049 124-37-088 124-37-089124-37-090124-37-091124-37-092124-37-093 124-37-094 124-37-095 124-37-096 124-37-097 124-37-098 124-37-099 124-37-100 124-37-101124-37-102 124-37-103 124-37-104 124-37-105124-37-106 124-37-107 124-37-108 124-37-109124-37-110124-37-111124-37-112124-37-113124-37-114 124-37-115 124-37-116 124-37-117 124-37-118 124-37-119 124-37-120 124-37-121 124-37-122 124-37-123 124-37-124 124-37-125 124-37-126 124-37-127 124-37-128124-37-129 124-37-130 124-37-131 124-37-132 124-37-133 124-37-134 124-37-135124-37-136 124-37-137 124-37-138 124-37-139 124-37-140 124-37-141 124-37-142124-37-143124-37-144124-37-145 124-37-146 124-37-147 124-37-148 124-37-149 124-37-150 124-37-151 124-37-152 124-37-153 124-37-154124-37-155 124-37-156124-37-157 124-37-158124-37-159 124-37-160 124-37-161 124-30-059 124-30-060 124-30-061 142-20-099 124-32-069 124-29-027 124-29-026 124-28-054 124-28-055 132-31-080 132-36-096 132-36-097 132-36-098 132-36-099 132-36-100 132-36-101 132-36-102 132-36-103 132-36-104 132-36-105 132-36-106 132-36-107 132-36-108 132-36-109 132-36-110 132-36-111 132-36-112 132-36-113 132-36-114 132-36-115 132-36-116 132-36-117 132-36-118 132-36-119 132-36-120 132-36-121 132-36-122 132-36-123 132-36-124 132-36-125 132-36-126 132-36-127 132-36-128 132-36-129 132-36-130 124-31-082 124-31-081 124-32-070 124-31-084 132-17-083 124-30-062124-30-063 124-30-064 124-30-065 137-01-148 137-01-149 124-19-117 124-38-003 124-38-005124-38-002 124-38-004124-38-001 132-37-068132-37-069132-37-070 132-37-071 137-01-150 Oxford Avenue Wellesley Street Princeton Street OberlinS Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College AvenueWilliams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford Avenue El C a min o R eal P a r k B o u le v a r d Park Avenue S e q u oi a A v e n u e uen o A ve n u e P ort ola A v e n u e Leland Avenue Stanford Avenue Birch Street Ash Street Alm a Street Grant Avenue Sheridan Avenue Jacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Road Mimosa Lane Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Page Mill Road Ash Street College Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield Lane Birch Street California Avenue Park Boulevard Nogal Lane Rinconada Ave Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard W ashington Avenue High Street Alm a Street Hig Emerson Street Nevada Avenue North California Avenue Ramona Stre High Street North Oregon Expressway Sedro Lane Peral Lane Sheridan Avenue CalTrain R O W Olms t e d Road Abrams Court Barnes Court e y Lan e St Olm sted R oad Olmsted Road Wellesley St Yale St Alma Street Birch StreetC B A 2-HR Commercial Area This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Evergreen Park RPP Eligibility Boundary Rpp Enforcement Adopted: 2-HR Commercial Evergreen Park - Mayfield RPP Zone A Evergreen Park - Mayfield RPP Zone B Evergreen Park - Mayfield RPP Zone C 0' 500' Ev e r g r e e n P a r k - M a y f i e l d Re s i d e n t i a l P r e f e r e n t i a l P a r k i n g P r o g r a m El i g i b i l i t y a n d E n f o r c e m e n t A r e a s CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto rtong, 2017-12-19 16:34:57 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\rtong.mdb) 2755 El Camino Real TDM Plan - DRAFT WHPV Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i 2755 El Camino Real Housing TDM Plan REVISED DRAFT November 2017 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this plan is to support a robust and context-sensitive transit-oriented development at 2755 El Camino Real. This will be achieved by: §Establishing a baseline understanding of the using conventional (ITE) suburban trip and parking generation modelling; §Reducing those baseline figures in consideration of the transit-oriented location of the site in Palo Alto and the greater Peninsula transportation network; §Proposing the specific transportation demand management (TDM) programs and policies for the development given its context; and, §Modelling the impacts of the aforementioned location and TDM programs utilizing the URBEMIS and GreenTRIP models, which adjust conventional average rates to quantify the impact of a development’s location, physical characteristics and any demand management programs. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION Proposed Project and Site Plans Windy Hill Property Ventures (WHPV) is planning to construct 57 new housing units in Palo Alto at the 19,563 square-foot lot situated at 2755 El Camino Real. Proposed for the site are 39 studio units and 18 1-bedroom units, all of which are rentals. The site, a former park-and-ride facility for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) transit service, is at the northwestern corner of the intersection of El Camino Real (California State Route 82) and Page Mill Road (Santa Clara County Route G3). The project also includes a variety of off-site improvements including an improved bus shelter located at the front of the project along El Camino Real and the restriping a portion of the red curbing along EL Camino Real north of the project site to include additional loading space in the project area. Proposed Parking The current vehicle parking requirement for multi-family residential land use in Palo Alto is set at 1.25 parking spaces for each studio, 1.5 parking spaces for each 1-bedroom unit and 19 parking spaces for guests (33 percent if parking is assigned), for a total requiring a minimum of 94 parking spaces for the site. The Municipal Code also allows for reductions in requirements due to proximity to transit as well as transportation and parking alternatives.1 Combined, these reductions can add up to 30%, reducing the required number of spaces to 65. The developer has proposed to build 68 parking spaces, including ADA-compliant spaces and spaces for electric vehicle charging. The remaining 60 spaces would be consolidated by a “stacker” system. The majority of spaces would be one floor underground in the basement level, with guest parking spaces at grade level. 1 See Appendix A for Code language. 2755 El Camino Real Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2 For bicycle parking, the current requirement is one long-term (Class I) space per dwelling unit and 0.1 short-term (Class II) space per dwelling unit. The developer has proposed a total of 76 bicycle parking spaces, including 68 long-term spaces and 8 short-term spaces. The bike room would be located on the first floor of the building. Baseline Vehicle Trip and Parking Generation The baseline figure was informed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual’s 9th Edition. The average rate of total weekday trips per dwelling unit for low- rise apartments2 is 6.59. Therefore, the baseline estimation of this site’s weekday trip generation totals 376 trips. This figure is certainly a ceiling to the possible number of trips, because that average figure, which is set at 50% entries and 50% exits, implies that, if visitors are not included, the average resident will leave their home location at least 3 times on a weekday. When applying ITE parking generation standards using the same quantity and land use code from the Parking Generation Manual (4th Edition), the traditional model will generate 70 parking spaces. Existing Context On a regional scale, the lot is immediately adjacent to the boundary of the California Avenue Priority Development Area (PDA). The area, defined originally in 2006 by the California Avenue Pedestrian Transit-Oriented District3, is one of many PDAs identified by regional planners as areas of focused job and housing growth throughout the Bay Area due to their proximity to high- capacity transit nodes. Existing Transit Service The site of the proposed project is along El Camino Real, the main arterial road serving the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. The site is a ½-mile walk to the southbound platform of the California Avenue Caltrain station. From the California Avenue station, Caltrain provides direct connections to San Francisco, San Jose, and many cities along the Peninsula. On a weekday, 28 northbound and 29 southbound trains stop at California Avenue. The site is also immediately adjacent to northbound buses running along the El Camino Real Corridor. Transit services available on site include the following: Figure 1 Transit Service Summary Transit Agency Route Number Destinations Service Hours Bus Frequency Range Walking Distance to nearest stop Caltrain Local and Limited- Stop Series San Francisco (King and 4th) to San Jose Weekdays (5:47 am – 1:07 am) Saturdays etc. Sundays etc. 11 to 60 minutes 0.5 miles (California Avenue) 2 ITE Code 221 3 The property is not subject to the overlay district. 2755 El Camino Real Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3 (100 and 200) (Diridon and Tamien) and Gilroy VTA Rapid 522 Palo Alto Transit Center to Eastridge Transit Center Weekdays (5:40 am – 10:57 pm) Saturday (8:00 am – 11:05 pm) Sunday/Holiday (9:04 am – 7:29 pm) 10 to 28 minutes (Weekdays) 13 to 30 minutes (Weekends/Holidays) 0.25 miles (California Avenue and El Camino Real) VTA 22 (Local) Palo Alto Transit Center to Eastridge Transit Center 24 Hours a day, 7 days a week 10 to 60 minutes (Weekdays) 15 to 80 minutes (Weekends/Holidays) Immediately outside VTA 89 California Avenue Caltrain Station to Palo Alto Veterans Hospital Weekdays (6:43 am- 6:37 pm) 13 to 45 minutes 0.25 miles (California Avenue and El Camino Real) VTA 102 (Express) South San Jose to Palo Alto Weekdays (Northbound 6:44-9:01 am; Southbound 3:15-5:33 pm) 10 to 30 minutes Immediately outside VTA 104 (Express) Penitencia Creek Transit Center to Palo Alto Weekdays (Westbound 6:45-7:35 am; Eastbound 4:22- 4:52 pm) 30 to 50 minutes 0.05 miles (across El Camino Real) VTA 182 (Express) Palo Alto to IBM/Bailer Avenue Weekdays (Southbound departure at 7:29 am; Northbound arrival at 6:14) N/A (Only one run in each direction) Immediately outside Dumbarton Express DB1 Stanford Research Park to Union City BART Station Weekdays (5:26 am – 8:43 pm) 17 to 60 minutes 0.05 miles (across Page Mill) Stanford University Marguerite Research Park (RP) Palo Alto Transit Center to Research Park (Peak Direction) Weekdays (6:31 am – 10:18 am and 3:23 – 7:33 p.m.) 20 to 40 minutes Immediately outside Stanford University Marguerite Shopping Express (SE) Palo Alto Transit Center to San Academic Year Weekdays (3:15 pm – 10:35) and Academic 50 to 60 minutes for regular service; 2 hours for summer/holidays Immediately outside 2755 El Camino Real Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4 Antonio Shopping Center Year Weekends (9:35 am – 11:08 pm) Summer weekends and Academic holidays (9:45 am – 11:08 pm) Currently, the bus stop immediately outside the project site consists of the minimum requisite signage and sidewalk width. It includes a bench and additional waiting area setback from the sidewalk. The development and design team is interested in working with the Palo Alto Transportation Division (PATD) and the VTA about new and revitalized amenities for the bus stop. Future Transit Service The recently approved VTA Transit Service Redesign will have very slight changes to the site’s transit service. Average weekday frequency of the 22 will decrease to an average of 15-minute headways, while average weekday frequency of the 522-Rapid will improve to an average of 12- minute headways.4 Otherwise, there are no changes for the alignments and frequencies of any other routes serving the site. The site is in the realm of two of the most prominent and consequential transit capital projects in the Bay Area. The first, the Caltrain Modernization Program entails the electrification of Caltrain’s trunk line, a major component across multiple strategic plans. Based on a prototypical schedule analysis, California Avenue would see a total of 66 average weekday daily trains5. This would be a 15.8% increase over the current number of weekday trains serving the station. The second project is the implementation of Bus Rapid Transit along El Camino Real, which is being incrementally rolled out, beginning in San Jose and Santa Clara in 2017-2018. Existing Bicycle Facilities There are multiple bicycle facilities, going in multiple directions, in proximity to the site. They include: • A Class II bike lane on Park Boulevard and Serra Boulevard connecting California Avenue/Page Mill Road with Stanford’s campus • A Class II bike lane on California Avenue extending north from Caltrain towards Louis Road • A Class III facility along the main commercial area of California Avenue • A Class II bike lane along California Avenue south of El Camino Real 4 http://nextnetwork.vta.org/route-info 5 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project EIR http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/FEIR/3.14+Transportation.pdf, 3.14-34 2755 El Camino Real Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5 TDM PROGRAM A TDM program can encourage the site’s residents to use the most environmentally friendly and spatially efficient mode possible for each trip, with an emphasis on transit, bicycling, walking, and shared rides. The strategies outlined below are designed to work together to affect site users’ travel habits. Targeted programs strengthen the benefits of investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and the site’s proximity to major transit nodes by reinforcing awareness of these options, breaking down barriers to incorporating them in travel routines, and incentivizing habitual use. Figure 2 TDM Strategy Summary TDM Strategy Description Caltrain Go Pass provision Provide unlimited Caltrain rides for all residents. VTA EcoPass provision Provide unlimited VTA bus rides for all residents. Bike share Provide shared bicycles onsite for the use of residents. Carpool Ride- Matching Services Tenant ride-matching services allows residents to easily be paired with potential carpool partners. Information Boards/Kiosks TDM information boards, kiosk, and hotline/online access to transportation information and coordinators. Improved Bus Shelter Upgrades to on-street bus shelter to encourage transit ridership Promotional Programs Promotion and organization of events for the following programs: new tenant orientation packets on transportation alternatives; flyers, posters, brochures, and emails on commute alternatives; transportation fairs; Bike to Work Day, Spare the Air; Rideshare Week; trip planning assistance routes and maps. On-site Transportation Coordinator On-site property management staff will provide a welcome package for new tenants, distribute Go Passes and other memberships, and additional information. Monitoring program By annually monitoring the TDM and parking program, the owner/management can adjust the strategies etc. in order to meet requirements, parking ratio, mode split, etc. Unbundling parking Pricing separately for all parking makes the rent more affordable to those who do not want a car while placing a premium on those who want guaranteed parking in a dense and transit- oriented environment. Based on a monthly fee of $200. Anticipated TDM Program Impact In order to verify the potential impact of the TDM package presented above, this memo examined two separate models – the URBEMIS model (traditionally used for vehicle trip impacts) and the GreenTRIP Connect Parking Model used by the Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2755 El Camino Real Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6 URBEMIS The URBEMIS model is used in this analysis to estimate an appropriate potential trip percent reduction impact from the stated baseline (being generated by Hexagon Consultants). This estimate is designed to be conservative in nature given that the Hexagon analysis already includes a 9% trip reduction adjustment due to proximity to transit. Based on the TDM program above, a 30% reduction in trips (above and beyond the 9% reduction) is feasible and would help justify a proportionate reduction in the parking requirement. GreenTRIP To estimate parking demand for the project, the GreenTRIP Connect Parking Model was used. The GreenTRIP Connect Parking Model was developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), a national nonprofit organization focused on developing research and modeling tools for city planning. The model’s equations were developed and calibrated using parking demand data from 71 transit-oriented developments throughout the Bay Area.6 The model is similar to those produced by CNT for King County, Washington state (RightSizeParking.org) and Washington, D.C. (ParkRightDC.org). The model’s calculations are based on local data and include several variables such as parking supply, average rent, parking price, average bedrooms per unit, presence of transit passes or carshare memberships, availability of affordable units, and neighborhood variables (walkability, job density and frequency of transit). Due to the local variables used in it, the GreenTRIP model only applies in the San Francisco Bay Area. These variables demonstrate the critical relationship between parking and vehicle trip generation. Parking supply and parking pricing are two of the most important factors to consider when determining ultimate vehicle trip generation. They are also the primary reasons why there is such a strong nexus between reductions in parking demand and vehicle trip generation – by limiting the former, lower vehicle trip generation naturally follows (whereas having TDM programs such as transit passes with free and abundant parking oftentimes has limited success in reducing vehicle trips). For transit-oriented developments in particular, the model is more appropriate than relying on more generic parking demand data from sources such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation (4th Edition) report, which provides data gathered at isolated suburban sites around the United States with free parking and little or no transit. While data from the ITE Parking Generation report is valuable for estimating demand at conventional auto-oriented sites, it is inappropriate for transit-oriented sites such as the 2755 El Camino Real project site, unless substantial adjustments are made to account for factors such as transit service levels, neighborhood character, parking prices, and other factors that affect parking demand. When factoring in the site, context, and proposed strategies (including unbundled parking, resident transit passes, , and bike share programs), the GreenTRIP model estimates a predicted rate of 0.65 parking spaces per dwelling unit, which, is substantially less than the 6 http://www.transformca.org/GreenTRIP-Connect/Methodology. http://www.transformca.org/sites/default/files/Parking%20Model%20July%202016.pdf 2755 El Camino Real Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 7 recommendation for a generic location in Santa Clara County on average (0.99 spaces per unit). This 0.65 rate equates to approximately 37 parking spaces7. Therefore, the proposed 68 spaces is sufficient for this site. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PLAN The TDM program for the site as proposed will be implemented by the applicant, future property management and/or by each tenant. The TDM program as currently proposed, includes measures that maximize project trip reduction. It is anticipated that WHPV will continue to modify and refine the TDM program over time, to best achieve the required trip reduction target, address market conditions and respond to employee and tenant needs. As such, WHPV and its tenants may implement TDM measures that are not currently listed in the checklist, since potential new measures may be found to be more effective in reducing vehicle trips Data Collection Vehicle Trips The number of vehicle trips associated with the project will be tracked using a hose or electronic count managed and overseen by a designated site-wide TDM coordinator, per the standards set by the Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.52.050 (d)(3)(4), as discussed below . The purpose of the count is to determine how many vehicles are entering and exiting the site during the peak hour. The count would typically be conducted over a 3-day period; Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday during a normal business week during the Stanford University academic year. Data on vehicle entries and exits is collected at all entry and exit points to the site continuously over the 3- day period. An average of the peak hour data for the three days is taken to determine the number of peak hour vehicle trips. The counts are conducted during the same month each year and the initial count should commence within a two years of the certificate of occupancy. Parking Occupancy Parking occupancy counts will be conducted within the off-street parking garage and, if required by the Chief Transportation Official, all on-street parking stalls within 750-feet of the project. Data collection activities will be done twice during each of the morning (7:00-9:00AM), midday (12:00-2:00PM), and evening (5:00-7:00PM) peak periods and once during the overnight period (11:30PM). Graphical figures and data tables shall be submitted as part this task. Graphical figures shall indicate the parking occupancy rates and parking restrictions along each block face, and the on-site parking lot, within the study area for each of the peak periods. The parking count survey shall indicate the occupancy rate of the apartments when the surveys were conducted. 7 http://connect.greentrip.org/ 2755 El Camino Real Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 8 Resident Surveys Surveys of the residents and their travel choices shall be a required component of the monitoring program with methods consistent with ITE’s Trip Generation Handbook, 10th Ed. or similar resource. All monitoring activities will be undertaken by a qualified third party transportation planning or engineering firm and a scope of work shall be submitted to the Chief Transportation Official for review and approval prior to conducting the necessary monitoring tasks. Program Evaluation The program would be evaluated and would include all of the TDM measures listed in this memo, to determine their effectiveness. Vehicle trip data counted would be measured against the ITE baseline as established by the Hexagon analysis. With the required evaluation, one can then easily track progress of the TDM program on site. If the TDM program is not achieving the total reduction of trips, additional and reasonable changes and new measures may be imposed. APPENDIX A - PALO ALTO CITY CODE 18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director Automobile parking requirements prescribed by this chapter may be adjusted by the director in the following instances and in accord with the prescribed limitations in Table 4, when in his/her opinion such adjustment will be consistent with the purposes of this chapter, will not create undue impact on existing or potential uses adjoining the site or in the general vicinity, and will be commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the development, including for visitors and accessory facilities where appropriate. No reductions may be granted that would result in provision of less than ten (10) spaces on a site. The following are adjustments that apply to developments not located within a parking assessment district. Adjustments within the parking assessment districts are contained in Section 18.52.080. The decision of the regarding parking adjustments may be appealed as set forth in Chapter 18.78 (Appeals). Table 4 Allowable Parking Adjustments Purpose of Adjustment Amount of Adjustment Maximum Reduction a On-Site Employee Amenities Square footage of commercial or industrial uses to be used for an on-site cafeteria, recreational facility, and/or day care facility, to be provided to employees or their children and not open to the general public, may be exempted from the parking requirements 100% of requirement for on-site employee amenities Joint Use (Shared) Parking Facilities For any site or sites with multiple uses where the application of this chapter requires a total of or more than ten (10) spaces, the total number of spaces otherwise required by application of Table 1 may be reduced when the joint facility will serve all existing, proposed, and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would separate parking facilities for each use or site. In making such a determination, the director shall consider a parking analysis using criteria developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) or similar methodology to estimate the shared parking characteristics of the proposed land uses. The analysis shall employ the city's parking ratios as the basis for the calculation of the base parking requirement and for the determination of parking requirements for individual land uses. The director may also require submittal and approval of a TDM program 1to further assure parking reductions are achieved. 20% of total spaces required for the site 2755 El Camino Real Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2 Housing for Seniors The total number of spaces required may be reduced for housing facilities for seniors, commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the housing facility, including for visitors and accessory facilities, and subject to submittal and approval of a parking analysis justifying the reduction proposed. 50% of the total spaces required for the site Affordable Housing Units and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units The total number of spaces required may be reduced for affordable housing and single room occupancy (SRO) units, commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the housing facility, including for visitors and accessory facilities. The reduction shall consider proximity to transit and support services and the director may require traffic demand management measures 1 in conjunction with any approval. a. 40% for Extremely Low Income and SRO Units b. 30% for Very Low Income Units c. 20% for Low Income Units Housing Near Transit Facilities The total number of spaces required may be reduced for housing located within a designated Pedestrian/Transit Oriented area or elsewhere in immediate proximity to public transportation facilities serving a significant portion of residents, employees, or customers, when such reduction will be commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the housing facility, including for visitors and accessory facilities, and subject to submittal and approval of a TDM program.1 20% of the total spaces required for the site. Transportation and Parking Alternatives Where effective alternatives to automobile access are provided, other than those listed above, parking requirements may be reduced to an extent commensurate with the permanence, effectiveness, and the demonstrated reduction of off-street parking demand effectuated by such alternative programs. Examples of such programs may include, but are not limited to, transportation demand management (TDM) programs or innovative parking pricing or design solutions.1 (note: landscape reserve requirement is deleted). 20% of the total spaces required for the site Combined Parking Adjustments Parking reductions may be granted for any combination of the above circumstances as prescribed by this chapter, subject to limitations on the combined total reduction allowed. a. 30% reduction of the total parking demand otherwise required b. 40% reduction for 2755 El Camino Real Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3 affordable housing projects c. 50% reduction for senior housing projects 1. See Section 18.52.050(d) below regarding requirements for TDM programs. 2. No reductions may be granted that would result in provision of less than ten (10) spaces on a site. (a) Combining Parking Adjustments Parking reductions may be granted for any combination of circumstances, prescribed by this chapter, so long as in total no more than a 30% reduction of the total parking demand otherwise required occurs, or no less than a 40% reduction for affordable housing projects (including Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units), or no less than 50% reduction for senior housing projects. (b) Deferral of Meeting Full Requirement by Landscape Reserve Where the expected need for off-street parking or bicycle facilities for a particular use is uncertain, due to unknown or unusual operating characteristics of the use and unavailability of comparable data to establish need, the director, upon recommendation of the architectural review board, may authorize that construction and provision of not more than fifty percent of the required off-street parking stalls and not more than twenty-five percent of the bicycle parking spaces be deferred. The number of bicycle parking spaces deferred shall be apportioned by construction type (long term or short term) in the same percentages as indicated in Table 1 of Section 18.52.040. The director may set such conditions as necessary to guarantee provision of such deferred spaces whenever the director determines the need to exist. Land area required for provision of deferred parking or bicycle spaces shall be maintained in reserve and shall be landscaped pursuant to a plan approved by the architectural review board demonstrating that ultimate provision of the deferred spaces will meet all requirements of this chapter. Upon use of the parking area at near build-out (at least 90% occupancy) over a period of at least ten years, the director may allow the reserve area to be used for other uses that do not generate parking demand, subject to restrictions and conditions to prevent conversion to a more intense use unless sufficient additional on-site parking is provided. (c) Off-Site Parking Except in parking assessment areas, the director may authorize all or a portion of the required parking for a use to be located on the site not more than 500 feet from the site of the use for which such parking is required, where in the director's judgment, such authorization will be in accord with the purposes of this chapter. The distance to the off-site parking shall be measured from the nearest corner of the parking facility to the nearest public entrance to the building via the shortest pedestrian route. (d) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) (1) A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program may be proposed by an applicant, or may be required by the director for any project requesting a reduction in parking, or may be required as CEQA mitigation for identified potential significant parking impacts. 2755 El Camino Real Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4 (2) Where a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program is proposed or required, the TDM program shall outline parking and/or traffic demand measures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip generation. Measures may include, but are not limited to: limiting "assigned" parking to one space per residential unit, providing for transit passes, parking cash- out, enhanced shuttle service (or contributions to extend or enhance existing shuttle service or to create new shared or public shuttle service), car-sharing, traffic-reducing housing, providing priority parking spaces for carpools/vanpools or "green" vehicles (zero emission vehicles, inherently low emission vehicles, or plug-in hybrids, etc.), vehicle charging stations, additional bicycle parking facilities, or other measures to encourage transit use or to reduce parking needs. The program shall be proposed to the satisfaction of the director, shall include proposed performance targets for parking and/or trip reduction and indicate the basis for such estimates, and shall designate a single entity (property owner, homeowners association, etc.) to implement the proposed measures. (3) Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the director two years after building occupancy and again five years after building occupancy, noting the effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared to the initial performance targets, and suggestions for modifications if necessary to enhance parking and/or trip reductions. (4) Where the monitoring reports indicate that performance measures are not met, the director may require further program modifications. (Ord. 4964 § 3 (part), 2007) Attachment P Environmental Documents Hardcopies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are provided to Commissioners. These documents are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Environmental Documents online: 1. Go to: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/planningprojects 2. Go to the “Pending Projects” webpage 3. Search for “2755 El Camino Real” 4. Review the record details and click on the address for more details A direct link to the project page is also provided here: https://tinyurl.com/2755-El-Camino-Real September 12 Agenda Item 2 Concerns Regarding the 2755 El Camino Real Proposal September 8, 2016 Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager Keene, and Director of Planning and Community Environment Gitelman: We are concerned by many issues surrounding the proposed project at 2755 El Camino Real and hope you’ll discuss these at your study session on Monday. Specifically: Zoning Issues  The project calls for “Another Zoning District” because Palo Alto has no zoning designation that allows such density. Putting 60 housing units on the 19,563 square foot site works out to approximately 134 units per acre. Given that 40 units per acre is our maximum in general, this would more than triple that and thus create an extraordinary change in Palo Alto zoning practice.  Because this proposal requires upzoning and spot zoning, it is basically PC zoning under a different plan. At least with PC zoning, you know precisely what you are getting. With this invent- a-zone approach, you don't.  RM-40 has a maximum FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 1.0. This project is proposing double that.  RM-40 projects require 50 square feet of private open space per unit. Yet the plans do not show such space for all units.  Will the owners be able to apply for the state density bonuses as well, creating an even denser, under-parked configuration?  What will rents be for these units? The premise is that micro-units will create lower-cost housing, but what guarantee does the city have once it approves a zone change? No pro-forma financial information accompanies the proposal. Parking/Traffic Issues  The building is massively under-parked. Assuming the higher cited requirement of 102 parking spaces, the proposal would likely put 57 (102 minus 45) cars into an already crowded neighborhood. That is unacceptable.  The staff report mentions parking reductions might be possible via a TDM, but does not explain how that makes sense. Consider that: o No independent study has ever shown a TDM in Palo Alto works. o Palo Alto has no enforcement of TDMs. o A study of residents of Palo Alto Central, which is even nearer to the train, shows that 85% still commute by car. o TDMs offer shuttles, GoPasses, bikes, and such to encourage people not to commute by car but do not try to reduce car ownership. Given that the proposed building is massively underparked, a successful TDM for its residents would mean that more of their cars would not be used to commute but instead remain in neighborhood parking spaces during workdays. Why should that merit a parking requirement reduction? It instead would be a parking disaster.  Director of Planning and Community Environment Gitelman has acknowledged that increasing housing creates more traffic. Why put more traffic at such a busy intersection? Public Trust  This kind of up/spot zoning means neighbors can no longer know what will be next to them. That’s unfair and not good planning.  Spot zoning harms the city as a whole. When a developer and a bare majority of councilmembers can rezone a property to be worth millions of dollars more, confidence in our city government erodes.  Many are skeptical of the practice of rezoning for one use and then substituting another, such as the Ming's Restaurant site that was rezoned for a hotel but was then changed to a Mercedes dealership. This project is NOT really about micro-units. They’re already allowed in RM-40 zoning and mixed-use projects, as well as ADUs. Ultimately, it's about under-parked residences and allowing residential buildings to exceed 1.0 FAR. We urge you to ask the owners to consider alternatives that retain the current zoning, which provides them a number of ways to create investment value. Thank you. Signed, PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) Steering Committee PAN Housing Committee PAN Zoning Committee whose members include: Sheri Furman, PAN Co-Chair Rebecca Sanders, PAN Co-Chair Norman Beamer Annette Glanckopf Jeff Levinsky Roger Petersen Doria Summa 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 Page Mill Project - Right Direction - Not There Yet   From: Hamilton Hitchings [mailto:hitchingsh@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:26 AM To: Council, City Cc: Lydia Kou; Keller, Arthur; Gitelman, Hillary; Costello, Elaine; Lee, Elena; Daniel Garber Subject: 2755 Page Mill Project - Right Direction - Not There Yet Dear City Council, You will be giving feedback on 2755 Page Mill Project Monday night. In the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Comp Plan and on the Land Use Subcommittee on which I also serve, we have talked about this type of project extensively, however, my comments below are my own and are not on behalf of nor represent either committee. This project is site appropriate and within walking distance of Stanford Research Park and Cal Ave. It is adjacent to other apartment buildings. Thus I support the design direction the project is taking and recommend modifications to the project. Specifically, the developer will get a large financial windfall by having the site upzoned thus it is incumbent upon the council to make sure it contributes sufficiently to the community. My recommendations are basically reduce the number of units and increase the parking. Note, these units will be expensive since, for example at Carmel The Village in San Antonio Shopping Center studio and one bedroom apartments that are 674+ square feet are renting for between $3000 and $6000 https://mycarmelthevillagecalifornia.prospectportal.com/Apartments/module/property_info/ Note, the Page Mill / El Camino intersection is already at Level of Service D and parking around Cal Ave is seriously under parked. My specific recommendations are: * Require 25% below market housing. Since the demand far outstrips the price of building, there is still a healthy profit to be made. * Consider requiring some of the units to be for developmentally disabled (this will help an underserved population while reducing parking demand) * Do not require ground floor retail. El Camino already has plenty. * Limit the height to 40 feet (it's currently 50 feet). This will help reduce the parking shortfall and traffic pressure. * Make the units slightly bigger 600 - 700 square feet. This will also reduce the parking shortfall and traffic pressure, while not cutting into developer margins. * Add to the deed that apartments occupants cannot have more cars registered than spots (but be realistic that this will not be enforced by the owner) * Require significant extra guest parking as part of the exchange for upzoning and monitor whether those spots are used at night, which will indicate whether parking "light" really works * Ensure no delivery temporary parking occurs on either Page Mill or El Camino 2 * Have the developer contribute to the TDM under the existing program to help reduce spots * Don't allow an entrance from Page Mill to the garage as that intersection is already a LOS D * Ensure bike lockers and bike parking (not currently in the plan) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Thursday, September 15, 2016 7:49 PM To:Council, City Cc:letters@paweekly.com; tod@windyhillpv.com City Council members: Public Facility. The most important aspect of the former VTA property is its designation as "public facility." I think that calls for more than the usual public benefit which is understood to be only a fringe benefit, with the main purpose of development to 1)turn a good profit for the developer and 2) raise the value of Palo Alto property. I would suggest that the applicant is thinking in the right direction, but there needs, in this case, to be more benefit. I would suggest the entire first floor be dedicated to such community uses as child care, senior day care, senior nutrition program (a federally subsidized lunch for seniors costing, nominally, two or three dollars a meal but available at no charge to those who cannot pay. Locally, it's at Avenidas, Stevenson House, MV Senior Center), the Betty Wright therapeutic swim center---Senior directed programs might be particularly suitable because the location is ideal for senior micro housing, since it is on the 22/522 bus line, the longest and most frequent line in the VTA system, and seniors constitute the largest segment of non- drivers, and it seems a pity to waste the site on people who need or prefer to drive cars anyway. There need not be a preference for low income seniors, because they are already at the head of the line for low-income housing. Sherwood apartments opened its waiting list for the first time in years and people were waiting in line days ahead of the opening, but there might be others who are willing to forego automobile transportation, which is a considerable sacrifice, especially in the rain, and they need not be excluded. IS propose that unlimited storage space occupy the basement, and that the luxury of storing many possessions rent for twice as much per square foot as the rental for lodging persons. Note that it is the widowed , divorced ore single retirees who are the low low income; while the couples automatically have twice as much income. The better off could, therefore, rent two 200 square foot apartments instead of one, if they wished, or not. It's essential that everybody recognize that a 200 square foot "apartment" will be overwhelmingly tenanted by one person only and not contribute to the ill effects of density, whereas a six to eight hundred square foot apartment, two bedrooms, bathroom, full kitchen and living room, will house a whole family--three or four people. Although each dwelling would have its own refrigerator,microwave and sink, a communal kitchen would serve the needs for the residents' larger festive or family dinners. \ Balconies To preserve the FAR which is the foundation of Palo Alto's reputation of a beautiful, not too crowded city, every single unit should be an outside unit, with an entire room as an open, gardened balcony. There would be a garden maintenance person to see that the gardens were kept up. The model for this is the 50 year old building at 101 Alma, in which both the side facing the Bay and the side facing Stanford have eight foot wide balconies along their entire length., which works out to 80 square feet, an entire outdoor room. Rent Control 2 It is time to extend the protection of Prop 13 to renters, and this land, zoned "public facility" is a perfect place to begin. The City Council has it within its power to raise the height limit so that a larger number of low income units would still turn a respectable profit. I propose that someone like Councilman Schmidt cost out the number of units at, say, $00. a month, would produce a return on investment of one percent over current treasury bonds,, and that the rent be increased by one percent a year. Stephanie Munoz 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Patama Gur <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: patamaroj@gmail.com <Patama Gur> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Patama Gur 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Robert Taylor <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: rob.k.taylor@gmail.com <Robert Taylor> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Robert Taylor 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Frank Dellaert <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: dellaert@gmail.com <Frank Dellaert> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Frank Dellaert 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sarit Schube <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: saritschube@gmail.com <Sarit Schube> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sarit Schube 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Scott Feeney <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: scott@oceanbase.org <Scott Feeney> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Scott Feeney 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Justine Burt <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: justineburt@alumni.tufts.edu <Justine Burt> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Justine Burt 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Michael Cutchin <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mcutchin@gmail.com <Michael Cutchin> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Michael Cutchin 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jen Pleasants <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jen@showthelove.com <Jen Pleasants> Message: thank you for considering helping make our community a healthier and happier place Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jen Pleasants 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Karen Schlesser <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: k_schlesser@yahoo.com <Karen Schlesser> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Karen Schlesser 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mike Greenfield <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mike@mikegreenfield.com <Mike Greenfield> Message: After 50+ years with virtually no new housing, we need this and lots more like it -- please! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mike Greenfield 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Tim Nguyen <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: timmynguyen1@gmail.com <Tim Nguyen> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Tim Nguyen 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Tricia Herrick <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: tbtextra@gmail.com <Tricia Herrick> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Tricia Herrick 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Anna Tchetchetkine <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: anya.tche@gmail.com <Anna Tchetchetkine> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Anna Tchetchetkine 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeff Rensch <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jrensch@gmail.com <Jeff Rensch> Message: With only 45 parking spaces, it will also be important to provide strong incentives not to own a car. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeff Rensch 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Huey Kwik <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: huey.kwik@gmail.com <Huey Kwik> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Huey Kwik 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sam Corbett Davies <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: samcorbettdavies@gmail.com <Sam Corbett Davies> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sam Corbett Davies 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mila Zelkha <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mila.zelkha@gmail.com <Mila Zelkha> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mila Zelkha 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Elizabeth Lasky <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: laskyea@gmail.com <Elizabeth Lasky> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Elizabeth Lasky 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Maelig Morvan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: melig@chez.com <Maelig Morvan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Maelig Morvan 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto   From: Diego Aguilar Canabal [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:07 PM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: d.aguilarcanabal@gmail.com <Diego Aguilar Canabal> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Diego Aguilar Canabal 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Developing the VTA site: No more underparked developments   ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Cheryl Lilienstein [mailto:clilienstein@me.com]   Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 8:01 AM  To: Council, City  Subject: Developing the VTA site: No more underparked developments        Dear Councilmembers,      Possibly this information will be useful to you in responding to the proposal regarding the VTA lot.    Recently my nephew disclosed he had looked at micro units in SF, and I asked him to describe his experience. Here is  what he reported. The unit he was offered cost $2600/month and had 250 square feet, and shared a kitchen with 6  other inhabitants. It was in SOMA, within two or three blocks of bus lines, CalTrain, Bart, Trader Joe and Whole Foods.  The building provided no parking. Renters with cars were told they could rent a spot in an uncovered lot several blocks  away for $620/month. The agent told my nephew that most people lived there less than one year, and the vacancy rate  was 10%.  So: $2600 + $620 = $3220 for a 250 square foot apartment in SF.     And: how is something like this going to do anything to make housing affordable? Some of you still insist “the market”  will correct itself if you provide more housing, but where is the evidence to support this? Does paying $2600 plus $620  (for 250 square feet of shared space plus remote uncovered parking) match your idea of affordable?       The proposal before you is for 60 units, with 45 parking spaces.   Unlike transit‐rich San Francisco we have no other “lots” to offer parking except neighborhood streets… You already  know that people have cars, use them, and park them in neighborhoods when no other parking is available, and that  those neighborhoods impacted no longer feel like neighborhoods. Please don’t allow this!     What is likely is that since housing is so expensive people will simply pack in together, and the people in 60 units will  have MANY more cars than anticipated.  Allowing under‐parking in a community that has inadequate transit is a gift to  the developers and adversely affects the entire community, ESPECIALLY in that intersection.    A better use might be an extension of Sunrise or another assisted living facility, in which the inhabitants don’t need  transit, the bustle in and out is minimal, and (I assume) employees have adequate parking. There’s no question that  there is a need for senior facilities in our area. Conversely, it would have a negative impact on every commuter and all  residents in our community if this developer is allowed to underpark a high density development RIGHT ON an already  terrible intersection. This is the wrong location to test that particular (and in my view wrong headed) experiment.    One more thing to consider: Whatever happened to that toxic plume beneath the lot? And who would be liable if the  city allowed the developer to unearth it and the adjacent inhabitants were affected?     Thank you for your service,  2 Cheryl Lilienstein                  1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto   From: Marcello Golfieri [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:07 AM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: golfieri@gmail.com <Marcello Golfieri> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Marcello Golfieri 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Patricia Saffir <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: opsaffir@mymailstation.com <Patricia Saffir> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Patricia Saffir 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:John Clark <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jclark4@gmail.com <John Clark> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. John Clark 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Anne Lumerman <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: anne.lumerman@gamil.com <Anne Lumerman > Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Anne Lumerman 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Stephen Reller <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: sreller@randmproperties.com <Stephen Reller> Message: The only thing wrong with this project is the height - it should be 100' tall and 120 units. Do the right thing and approve this (and do not let the very vocal few misrepresent the majority of PA citizens.) Thank you Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Stephen Reller 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Debin Ji <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: debinji1983@gmail.com <Debin Ji> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Debin Ji 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Tom Arnold <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: tomarnold@gmail.com <Tom Arnold> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Tom Arnold 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Christopher Colohan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: paloaltoforward@colohan.com <Christopher Colohan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Christopher Colohan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Kevin Watts <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: kevinwwatts@gmail.com <Kevin Watts> Message: As a Palo Alto resident, these homes would help reduce traffic by creating housing near existing jobs. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Kevin Watts 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Dave Ashton <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: aashton@gmail.com <Dave Ashton> Message: We need housing near employment centers!!!!! And this is so close to the California Ave Caltain Station, a resident could walk. What a great project! More housing near transit and employment PLEASE. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Dave Ashton 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Charles Salmon <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: cssalmon@gmail.com <Charles Salmon> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Charles Salmon 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Isaac Rosenberg <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: irosenb7@gmail.com <Isaac Rosenberg> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Isaac Rosenberg 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Amy Sung <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: amyconnect@gmail.com <Amy Sung> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Amy Sung 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Steve Pierce <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: pierce@zanemac.com <Steve Pierce> Message: We are in a housing hole and need to work our way out at every opportunity. Diversity of housing types is a must. Reduced parking is appropriate for the Uber generation, particularly when proximate to Caltrain and VTA. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Steve Pierce 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jan Skotheim <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: skotheim@stanford.edu <Jan Skotheim> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jan Skotheim 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Evan Goldin <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: evan.goldin@gmail.com <Evan Goldin> Message: As a Palo Alto native, I'm a strong believer that we need more housing to make Palo Alto affordable again to my friends, coworkers and neighbors. Please support this development. Even though it's too late to save the Zebra Copy across the street, it's not too late to make that parking lot into homes for future residents! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Evan Goldin 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Heidi Stein <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: heidih.stein@gmail.com <Heidi Stein> Message: I will need to hear more about this specific project, but in general this is the kind of housing project I support. More density, more affordable - the opposite of what happened on Maybell! Heidi Stein Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Heidi Stein 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Rebecca Geraldi <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:24 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: winterskeeper@yahoo.com <Rebecca Geraldi> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Rebecca Geraldi 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Francis Viggiano <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: fpviggiano@gmail.com <Francis Viggiano> Message: Please help assure our children and grandchildren will have reasonable housing options in this area by approving this project. We are on the cusp of a transition to shared, self-driving cars, so there will be decreased need for parking in the near future. Let's lead the way into the future. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Francis Viggiano 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ed Wu <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:07 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: yiranwu@gmail.com <Ed Wu> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ed Wu 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Shelley Ratay <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: shelleyratay@gmail.com <Shelley Ratay> Message: Thank you for considering this important project in our community! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Shelley Ratay 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Lisa Forssell <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: lisa.forssell@gmail.com <Lisa Forssell> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Lisa Forssell 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Owen Byrd <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: owenbyrd@gmail.com <Owen Byrd> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Owen Byrd 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Nicole Lederer <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: nicole@nicolelederer.com <Nicole Lederer> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Nicole Lederer 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jan Rubens <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: rubens.jan@gmail.com <Jan Rubens> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jan Rubens 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ellen Cassidy <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ellenwcassidy@gmail.com <Ellen Cassidy> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ellen Cassidy 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sara Woodham <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: sawoodham@gmail.com <Sara Woodham> Message: Are you up we need more affordable housing in Palo Alto. In fact we just need more housing in general. Please approve increasing our inventory. This is close to public transportation which makes it ideal for individuals working in Palo Alto Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sara Woodham 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Marc Grinberg <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: marcgrinberg@gmail.com <Marc Grinberg> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Marc Grinberg 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Paul Feng <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: paulfeng@gmail.com <Paul Feng> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Paul Feng 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Margaret Rushing <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: margaret.rushing@gmail.com <Margaret Rushing> Message: I'm in favor of starting with 60 new affordable housing units and hoping that more will be added. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Margaret Rushing 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Bryan Culbertson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: bryan.culbertson@gmail.com <Bryan Culbertson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Bryan Culbertson 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Steve Levy <slevy@ccsce.com> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:17 AM To:Council, City Subject:Windy Hill Proposal I am pleased to see that Windy Hill has responded to the council's desire for housing on the Page Mill/ECR site.    I am sure both tonight and going forward there will be lots of details to discuss.    I am encouraged that the proposal meets many of the Housing Element goals especially those in favor of adding smaller  units like the studios and one‐bedroom apartments proposed.    The site also is close to everyday services and shopping and will support these activities in the California Avenue area,  which I know is a council and resident priority.    The project will be a test of the market for smaller well‐located housing in Palo Alto. The rents will be above what low‐ income families as all non subsidized housing on the peninsula is but the rents will welcome many individuals who can in  now way afford median home prices here. So the project will expand supply and expand opportunities.    I support the kind of housing being proposed and I hope the council and Windy Hill can develop a final proposal that  does not raise costs and rents.    Stephen Levy  365 Forest Avenue   Palo Alto, CA 94301    1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Hannah Illathu <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:12 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: illathu.hannah@gmail.com <Hannah Illathu> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Hannah Illathu 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeralyn Moran <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jeralyn.moran@gmail.com <Jeralyn Moran> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeralyn Moran 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:John Sack <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:02 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: sack@stanford.edu <John Sack> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. John Sack 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Manu Sridharan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: msridhar@gmail.com <Manu Sridharan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Manu Sridharan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ilana Cohen <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ieydus@gmail.com <Ilana Cohen> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ilana Cohen 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Patricia Mc Brayer <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 2:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: patricia@pmarchitect.net <Patricia Mc Brayer> Message: We must address the housing crisis in Palo Alto and the Peninsula at large immediately if we are to remain sustainable as a community for the long term. The proposed project provides a much needed diversity of housing type on a transit and work friendly site. Please move forward with the approvals process, allowing a zoning change and micro-housing overlay. As part of the approvals process, I urge you to require the developer to address affordability in a meaningful way by limiting rental rates and/or purchase price on a specified number of units to 50% of market rate, with priority given to people with residency in the Bay Area of 3 years or more making 50% or less than median income. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Patricia Mc Brayer 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Elaine Uang <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 2:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: elaine.uang@gmail.com <Elaine Uang> Message: 60 homes alone can't solve the regional housing crisis, but this is a good start to think about new ways to provide housing in the right places. While I hope some preference is given to city employees, teachers, nurses, or local workers, even market rate studios and 1-bdrms fill a need in our community and help relieve (somewhat) the competition for smaller affordable units. I hope you can work together with the applicant, community and staff to rezone this parcel and implement the right regulatory frameworks that will encourage more smaller unit projects like this proposal in service and transit rich areas such as Cal Ave and Downtown. Thank you for your attention to this project. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Elaine Uang 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Elliot Margolies <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 2:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: elliotspark@yahoo.com <Elliot Margolies> Message: We have so much work to do to catch up with 3 decades of a lopsided jobs-housing ratio and the resulting unaffordability of our community. I appreciate your leadership in this arena. Elliot Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Elliot Margolies 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Snow Zhu <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: snowxzhu@berkeley.edu <Snow Zhu> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Snow Zhu 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Molly W <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: meleleshopping@gmail.com <Molly W> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Molly W 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Daniel Walker <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: dan.walker1@gmail.com <Daniel Walker> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Daniel Walker 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Randy Popp <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: randy@rp-arch.com <Randy Popp> Message: This is the right time to consider changing the status quo for housing and parking requirements. Please approve this project without delay. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Randy Popp 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Liat Zavodivker <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: lzavod@gmail.com <Liat Zavodivker> Message: Build housing for the improvement of the environment! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Liat Zavodivker 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Naphtali Knox <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: knoxnaph@gmail.com <Naphtali Knox> Message: If not here, where? If not now, when? Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Naphtali Knox 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeremy Hoffman <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: hoffmanj@gmail.com <Jeremy Hoffman> Message: I used to live in the apartment complex that overlooked that empty parking lot. It'll be lovely to replace that lot with a useful building. And it's a great location for housing, being walking distance to the Cal Ave downtown and farmers market, the Caltrain stop, and being right next to the bus stop. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeremy Hoffman 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sarah Bell <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: bell.sarah@gmail.com <Sarah Bell> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sarah Bell 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jessica Youseffi <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jyouseffi@gmail.com <Jessica Youseffi> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jessica Youseffi 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Barb Swenson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: swenson.barb@gmail.com <Barb Swenson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Barb Swenson 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Kyle Barrett <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: kylembarrett@gmail.com <Kyle Barrett> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Kyle Barrett 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Nancy Olson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: nso2431@icloud.com <Nancy Olson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Nancy Olson 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jessica Clark <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jermsica@comcast.net <Jessica Clark > Message: I support this but would also like to see some BMR's worked into this project. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jessica Clark 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Andrew Boone <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: nauboone@gmail.com <Andrew Boone> Message: Dear Palo Alto City Council, More affordable housing near high-quality transit is key to creating a sustainable and equitable community. That's why I support the 60-unit Windy Hill apartments at 2755 El Camino Real. Higher-density housing and fewer car parking spaces are a common sense solution to providing more residents access to transit and good bicycling and walking opportunities. Vote YES for more homes for people! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Andrew Boone 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Fred Glick <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: fred@fredglick.com <Fred Glick> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Fred Glick 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ellen Uhrbrock <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ellen.uhrbrock@gmail.com <Ellen Uhrbrock> Message: Instead of stopping them at the drawing board - encourage competition with a significant prize awarded the architect including a green light to build immediately, subject only to Council's and neighborhood's approval. Do not give city employees, or teachers priority - Give financial priority only to car less renters and owners. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ellen Uhrbrock 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jerry Schwarz <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jerry@acm.org <Jerry Schwarz> Message: There may be objection to the height of the building My own feeling about height is well known. Tall buildings can be attractive. And I like them. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jerry Schwarz 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Gary Fine <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: gary@finepoquet.com <Gary Fine> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Gary Fine 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Melody Baumgartner <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: melodybaumgartner@gmail.com <Melody Baumgartner> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Melody Baumgartner 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Neil Shea <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: neilshea@yahoo.com <Neil Shea> Message: Need to maximize centralized locations like this -- and make a dent in our housing/cost crisis Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Neil Shea 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jane Uyvova <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jane.uyvova@gmail.com <Jane Uyvova> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jane Uyvova 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Omar Diab <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 4:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: me@omardiab.com <Omar Diab> Message: The entire Sam Francisco Bay Area needs more housing and Palo Alto is ground zero of this crisis. This project must be built! It is in a prime transit corridor and just makes so much sense. Please construct it! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Omar Diab 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Amy Kiefer <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: amy.kiefer@gmail.com <Amy Kiefer> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Amy Kiefer 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ozzie Fallick <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ozzie.fallick@gmail.com <Ozzie Fallick> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ozzie Fallick 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Aleks Totic <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: a@totic.org <Aleks Totic> Message: Studios and one bedrooms would be a nice addition to PA. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Aleks Totic 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Erhyu Yuan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: erhyoohoo@yahoo.com <Erhyu Yuan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Erhyu Yuan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Lauren Winslow <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: lauren.winslow@gmail.com <Lauren Winslow> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Lauren Winslow 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Maristela Cardoso <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: marismach@yahoo.com <Maristela Cardoso> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Maristela Cardoso 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Keva Dine <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: kmdine@gmail.com <Keva Dine> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Keva Dine 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Adriana Eberle <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: liederseberle@gmail.com <Adriana Eberle> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Adriana Eberle 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Edward Hillard <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: edhillard@gmail.com <Edward Hillard> Message: It is still painful to me that some sixty units of affordable housing for seniors were eliminated due to the political pressure of the Baron Park community. I believe we should be building multi-unit housing wherever possible in Palo Alto. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Edward Hillard 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Adriana Eberle <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: liederseberle@gmail.com <Adriana Eberle> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Adriana Eberle 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Steve Eittreim <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: eitteeimcs@gmail.com <Steve Eittreim> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Steve Eittreim 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mike Buchanan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mike.r.buchanan@gmail.com <Mike Buchanan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mike Buchanan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Matt Austern <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: austern@gmail.com <Matt Austern> Message: We need more housing construction in Palo Alto to address the housing affordability crisis. There's no better place to build housing in the city than right next to a public transportation hub. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Matt Austern 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Rohun Jauhar <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jauharro@gmail.com <Rohun Jauhar> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Rohun Jauhar 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Gail Price <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: gail.price3@gmail.com <Gail Price > Message: We should take every opportunity possible to expand housing options throughout our community. Close to transit and the California corridor enhances the location ! More complexes like this are needed to make support our S-CAP plan. Frankly, one of the problems is simple: supply of housing vs. demand for housing. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Gail Price 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ciera Jaspan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ciera.christopher@gmail.com <Ciera Jaspan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ciera Jaspan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Laura Fingal Surma <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 5:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: laura.surma@gmail.com <Laura Fingal Surma> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Laura Fingal Surma 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jane Huang <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 5:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jane.x.huang@gmail.com <Jane Huang> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jane Huang 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Becky Richardson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 5:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: becky.richardson@gmail.com <Becky Richardson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Becky Richardson 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jared Bernstein <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jared@erosenfeld.com <Jared Bernstein> Message: I would have written something a bit shorter. But the message is: I support dense housing at PageMill & El Camino. /Jared Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jared Bernstein 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Kim Butts Pauly Ph.D. <kbpauly@stanford.edu> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page I read with great interest the story about the small housing units for El Camino and Page Mill. I wanted to bring to your attention that there is another group of people for whom small apartments and only bike parking would be perfect - the hundreds of postdoctoral fellows working at Stanford. As it is, they contribute to the hundreds of commute trips through Palo Alto to housing around the peninsula. These are people with advanced degrees, but little pay. This type of housing would fill a huge need and reduce commute trips. Thank you, -Kim ********************************** Kim Butts Pauly, Ph.D. Professor of Radiology 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Susie Hwang <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: shwang@me.com <Susie Hwang > Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Susie Hwang 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto   From: Anita Lusebrink [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 2:50 PM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: anita@satakenursery.com <Anita Lusebrink> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Anita Lusebrink 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Erika Conley <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: erikaconley@gmail.com <Erika Conley> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Erika Conley 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Bette Kiernan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: betteuk@aol.com <Bette Kiernan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Bette Kiernan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Judy Adams <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:16 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: judyblueeyes1@gmail.com <Judy Adams> Message: In addition to including "affordable units" (below market rate), the project needs low-income units, probably the studio size. The use of the term affordable is not really accessible to low-income residents and there needs to be an element of truly low-income in ALL Palo Alto and all peninsula housing elements to serve community needs. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Judy Adams 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Karen Penstock <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Thursday, September 15, 2016 4:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: karenpenstock@yahoo.com <Karen Penstock> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Karen Penstock 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mark Kennedy <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2016 4:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mdavkennedy@gmail.com <Mark Kennedy> Message: You need to do this. If you do not, then you are the problem. MDK Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mark Kennedy 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeffrey Salzman <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Thursday, September 15, 2016 6:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jsalzman3@gmail.com <Jeffrey Salzman> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeffrey Salzman 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto   From: Darryl Fenwick [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 9:08 AM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: fenwickdh@yahoo.com <Darryl Fenwick> Message: In a time when everyone is complaining about lack of affordable housing, it would be a poor decision to not back this project! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Darryl Fenwick 2755 El Camino Real Project Description The project proposes to develop a new multi-family residential building, 50 feet in height and totaling 41,304 square feet at 2755 El Camino Real. The project site is a vacant parking lot formerly used as a Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Park and Ride facility. The development proposal includes the following requests: 1. Zoning Code Text Amendment to create a new combining district that would allow housing on the subject property and that could be applied to other sites in the PF zone within 0.5 mile of fixed rail transit in the future, through a legislative process within Council and the PTC’s purview; 2. Zoning Map Amendment to apply the new combining district to the subject site. 3. Site and Design review to allow for construction of a proposed four-story multi-family residential building with 60 dwelling units and one level of partially below-grade parking. The project would also require an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to allow for multi- family housing projects within the Major Institution Special Facilities land use designation. Attachment S Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Commissioners. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln 2. On the left hand side click “Development Proposals” 3. In the drop down window click “Pending Projects” 4. Scroll to find “2755 El Camino” and click the address link 5. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://tinyurl.com/2755-El-Camino-Real Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8401) Report Type: Meeting Date: 1/31/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Public Facilities (PF) Zoning Ordinance Amendment Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Recommendation to the City Council to Adopt an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose, PF, OS and AC Districts), Sections 18.28.050 (Site Development Standards), 18.28.060 (Additional PF District Design Requirements), and 18.28.090 (Parking and Loading) to Revise Development Standards for City Essential Services Buildings and Appurtenant or Ancillary Structures Including Emergency Communication Towers, and Public Parking Facilities within the Public Facilities (PF) Zone District within the Downtown and California Avenue Districts, and to Make Other Clerical or Technical Corrections. CEQA: The proposed Ordinance is evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Palo Alto Public Safety Building and Public Parking Garage Project at 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue. The Draft EIR was published January 8, 2018 for a 45 day comment period ending February 22, 2018. For More Information, Contact Amy French at Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) as it relates to the proposed text amendment, and 2. Recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance (Attachment A). City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Report Summary The City Council has provided direction to staff to undertake the necessary efforts toward establishing a new public safety building (PSB) and public parking garage on Sherman Avenue in the California Avenue Business District and another public parking garage Downtown on Hamilton Avenue. Both project design and environmental review have been underway to prepare the required plans, analysis and documents for Council’s consideration of the projects for approval. Plans for these structures are subject to the Architectural Review process and are currently being reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). To implement these projects consistent with the Council’s objectives, Zoning Code amendments are required to the development regulations for Public Facilities (PF) zoned properties located in the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. The proposed Sherman Avenue developments and the Zoning Code text amendments have been analyzed in a draft environmental impact report (DEIR) prepared for the project. The Downtown garage is being considered under a separate environmental impact report. The January 8, 2018 DEIR, provided separately to PTC members ten days prior to the PTC meeting, principally addresses the proposed construction of a parking garage at 350 Sherman Avenue and a Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue. The 45-day public comment period ends February 22, 2018. All comments received during the public comment period will be addressed in the Final EIR. The PTC’s role for this project is to consider the environmental analysis, as it relates to the text amendment, and to make a recommendation to Council on the proposed ordinance amending the PF zoning development regulations. The text amendments are drafted to give the Council latitude in applying the PF development regulations as it relates to city projects only and specifically public parking garages and essential public safety buildings within the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. The amendments would not apply to private development. Background The Council gave staff direction during project “Prescreening” meetings on April 3 and 11, 2017 to bring back an ordinance with text amendments to enable processing of the applications for a new public safety building and public parking garages1. The proposed projects are located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District and the California Avenue Business District (which was formerly also a Parking Assessment District). The City maintains public parking garage structures in both of these districts. The districts’ primary Comprehensive Plan land use designation is Regional/Community Commercial, and they both contain commercial uses, mixed uses and residential uses. The California Avenue area is a Priority Development Area or PDA, which Palo Alto has identified as an area for investment, new homes and job growth. The 1 April 3 Council report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56666 April 3 Council video link: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-122/ April 11 Council report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56784 Aprll 11 Council video link: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-123/ City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) website notes that PDAs (along with Priority Conservation Areas or PCAs) are “the foundation for sustainable regional growth and Plan Bay Area.”2 California Avenue Area/Sherman Avenue PSB Project Site The 2.3 acre PSB Project site (encompassing both the PSB and the public parking garage) is currently comprised of two parking lots (Lots C-6 and C-7) on two blocks located at 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue, bound by Sherman Avenue, Jacaranda Lane, Ash Street, and Park Boulevard, and bisected by Birch Street. Jacaranda is generally the service and delivery alley for California Avenue businesses. The site (plus the portion of Birch Street between the two lots) includes 39 trees. Across Sherman Avenue from the project site are the Santa Clara County Courthouse (the tallest nearby building) and parking lot. Properties fronting Ash Street between Grant Avenue and Sherman Avenue include multiple-family residential uses and Sarah Willis Park. Land uses along Park Boulevard from Grant Avenue to Sherman Avenue include office/commercial uses, including several restaurants. The buildings in the project vicinity are generally one to three stories; the Courthouse is four stories. The PSB site at 250 Sherman has a different Comprehensive Plan land use designation (Major Institution/Special Facilities) than the designation of the parking garage site at 350 Sherman (Regional/Community Commercial). The DEIR provided to PTC members in advance of this report provides a full description of the filed projects at 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue, which are subject to Architectural Review and recommendation to City Council. A bird’s eye view of the PSB Project site is shown on the following page. The upper lot is the proposed PSB site and the lower lot is the proposed public parking garage site. Both blocks are zoned PF. The public parking garage would be built before the Public Safety Building. 2 https://abag.ca.gov/priority/development/ is the ABAG website URL City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Downtown, Hamilton Avenue Garage Project Site The 0.67 acre Hamilton Garage site is the City parking lot on the western corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street with driveway access to both streets and to Lane 21, a one-way alley from Waverley to Bryant Streets. The “L”-shaped lot has 205 feet of frontage to the south on Hamilton, 100 feet of frontage to the east on Waverley and 62 feet frontage on Lane 21. The parking lot contains 86 existing parking spaces. Zoned PF, the site has a Regional/ Community Commercial Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. The project application was filed in October 2017 for ARB review. The ARB and PTC have received copies of the DEIR for the project. Briefly, the project is the construction of a new four-story public parking garage consisting of five above ground parking levels and one basement parking level, along with a 2,188 square foot (sq. ft.) retail space fronting Waverley Street. The structure height would be 49’-10” to the top of the fifth deck, 58’6” to the top of the Photo-Voltaic panel support structure, and 63’ to the top of the elevator shaft. It would provide approximately 338 automobile parking stalls, including nine accessible spaces and nine electric vehicle-charging station stalls. A 438 sq. ft. bicycle parking area would provide 50 bicycle parking spaces. The building would be designed with infrastructure to allow installation of photovoltaic panels mounted above the uppermost parking deck. The targeted construction start year is 2019, so the lot can open to traffic in 2020. A bird’s eye view image on the following page shows the existing parking lot next to the AT&T building, which abuts a retail building to the west on Hamilton Avenue. The site is next to commercial buildings that front University Avenue and Waverley Street; Waverley Street businesses currently use the City parking lot to gain access to the rear of the buildings. The site City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 is across from the historic US post office on Hamilton Avenue, across from All Saints Episcopal Church on Waverley Street, and on the opposite corner from the brick-finished Wells Fargo Bank building. Analysis3 The operational and design requirements of a new public safety building cannot be achieved based on the existing PF zoning regulations. To maximize the number of garage parking spaces and other program objectives as directed by Council, code amendments are required. The proposed code changes have limited applicability - to city projects located within the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts on PF zoned lots. The amendments also reflect an approach to not only address the three projects being considered now, but also account for future city projects in the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts that may conflict with PF zoning. Code language has been drafted to give City Council the authority to grant modifications to development standards for qualifying projects. Proposed PF Zoning Amendment The purpose of the PF zone is to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. The development standards and parking facility 3 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommended action. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 setbacks for the PF Zone District are at odds with the City Council’s goals for new public parking structures in the Downtown and California business districts, and given emergency services requirements for the new PSB. 1. Public Safety Building. The goal is to locate and operate the City’s Police Department, Office of Emergency Services, Emergency Operations Center, Emergency Communications (911 Dispatch) Center, and Fire Administration Division in one centralized facility that:  Is sized to accommodate public safety services, operations, equipment and personnel in one centralized space to meet the programmatic needs, which include provision of ample subterranean parking spaces for emergency services employees, security for the operations yard, and a functional emergency telecommunications mono-pole, and  Meets the standards of an essential services facility to substantially increase the probability of maintaining operation after a major earthquake, natural disaster, or other substantial disruption or disaster. 2. Sherman Avenue Public Parking Garage. The goals are to:  Provide more parking in the California Avenue Business area of Palo Alto (therefore maximizing parking spaces on the 350 Sherman site), and  Construct the garage prior to the PSB in a manner that would minimize disruption of existing parking facilities for current users of the surface parking lots on the project site. 3. Hamilton Avenue Public Parking Garage. The goals are to:  Increase parking spaces in the downtown area to the maximum extent possible to meet parking demands in the downtown area and reduce parking spillover to the nearby residential neighborhoods,  Provide neighborhood serving retail uses and pedestrian friendly storefront on Waverley Street,  Use street frontages to contribute to the economic vitality of the City, and  Provide visually appealing structure compatible with downtown character and nearby historic buildings. A brief summary of the code changes needed to accommodate these project objectives is provided below, as are Zoning compliance tables for both projects (Attachments B and C). The PF zone development standards, design requirements, and parking and loading regulations are proposed to be modified to apply to public parking facilities and essential services buildings (including the emergency communications tower to be installed on the PSB roof) in the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. The attached ordinance is intended to allow for exceptions to the Public Facilities (PF) zone regulations and require Council review and facilitate Council decisions on applicable project applications. In summary, the following exceptions from the PF zone standards are requested: (1) Exceed the height limit: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7  For the PSB, for the emergency communications tower (135 feet tall);  For the Sherman Garage, to reach a height of 40’7” to the top of the parking structure and 49 feet to the top of the photovoltaic structure, heights exceeding the maximum 35 foot height limit within 150 feet of a residential zone district; and  For the Hamilton Garage, to exceed the 50 foot height limit by 8’6” for the photo-voltaic panel support structure (the elevator tower at 63’ is allowed by code). (2) Exceed maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR):  The Sherman Garage would have a 3.57:1 FAR, where 1:1 FAR is allowed; and  The Hamilton Garage would have a 3.8:1 FAR; where 1:1 FAR is allowed. (3) Exceed the maximum site coverage:  The Sherman Garage would have a 89.3% site coverage, where 45% is the maximum allowed because the maximum lot coverage allowed in the PF zone is ‘equal to the site coverage established by the most restrictive adjacent district, which is the RM-40 zone (where site coverage is limited to 45% of the site); and  The Hamilton Garage is allowed up to 100% site coverage (since, per PAMC 18.28.050(a) Table 2, for parking facilities, the maximum site coverage is equal to the site coverage established by the most restrictive adjacent district, which is the CD zone, where there is no maximum site coverage for non-residential development). (4) Encroach into minimum setbacks:  For Sherman Garage, encroach fully into setbacks along three streets (Birch, Ash, Sherman) and one alley (Jacaranda),  For Hamilton Garage, the building columns would encroach fully to meet the property lines on two streets (Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street), and  For the PSB, from the alley (Jacaranda) for the parking lot and courtyard walls and from the alley, and below grade parking facility from three streets (Sherman, Park and Birch). Hamilton Avenue Setback The 375 Hamilton Avenue Garage project includes a request to encroach seven feet into the seven-foot Hamilton Avenue special setback (structure to encroach five feet, architectural cladding/finishes, benches and planters will encroach the full seven feet). PAMC Title 20, Chapter 20.08 Setback Lines, Section 20.08.030 prohibits placement of new buildings or structures between the street line and setback line. PAMC Title 18 Section 18.76.030 (3) states that variances may be granted to the requirements of Title 20. The attached PF ordinance would allow Council to approve the proposed Downtown parking garage encroachment into seven- foot and 20-foot Hamilton setbacks. The Hamilton Avenue special setback extends from Alma Street to Waverley Street (with the exception of the City Hall site). This setback is also imposed upon properties on the block between Cowper and Webster Streets. Findings for Zoning Amendment Approval City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 In accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.80, a text amendment can only be approved if a finding is made documenting the necessity through public interest or general welfare. Changes to zoning regulations may be initiated by City Council, by the PTC on its own initiative or by application of the property owner. In this case, the City Council’s direction was the impetus for the proposed text amendment. The code requires the PTC to send its recommendation that sets forth the findings and determinations of the commission with respect to the proposed change. The City Council would also review each eligible public facility project following submittal of an application for a specific site within either Downtown or the California Avenue area, if the project includes a request for Council adjustment of the development standards. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Below are listed the Comprehensive Plan policies relevant to the proposed ordinance changes, which would enable Council to approve the proposed garages and Public Safety Building that do not fully conform with current PF development standards. The policies are identified as follows: o Policy T-5.6, strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking, and explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible, o Policy T-5.8, promote vehicle parking areas designed to reduce stormwater runoff, increase compatibility with street trees and add visual interest to streets and other public locations. Encourage the use of photovoltaic panel or tree canopies in parking lots or on top of parking structures to provide cover, consistent with the Urban Forest Master Plan, o Policy T-5.10, encourage the use of adaptive design strategies in new parking facilities in order to facilitate reuse in the future if and when conditions warrant, o Policy L-1.3, Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. o Policy L-1.10, hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts, o Policy L-4.2, encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping, o Policy L-4.5, maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown as a major commercial center of the City with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character, o Policy L-4.8, maintain the existing scale, character and function of the California Avenue business district as a shopping, service and office center intermediate in City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 function and scale between the Downtown and the smaller neighborhood business areas, o Policy L-6.1, promote high quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces, o Policy L-9.2, encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand, o Policy L-9.7 strengthen the identity of important community-wide gateways, including…entries to commercial districts, The above policies are a subset of policies identified in the January 18, 2018 ARB report’s Record of Land Use Action for the 350 Sherman garage project. Environmental Review In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed ordinance modification has been evaluated in a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) with a concurrent application for the Palo Alto Public Safety Building and public parking garage project at 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue. The Draft EIR was published January 8, 2018 for a 45-day public comment period ending February 22, 2018. The DEIR may be viewed online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62804. On January 22, 2018, Council is reviewing staff’s recommendation to reduce the below grade parking garage levels to one level below grade. The project description in the DEIR includes: (a) the location and boundaries of the project site; (b) the background leading up to the proposed project; (c) the overall objectives sought by the project; (d) the various project design and operational characteristics; (e) the potential project construction timing; and (f) the jurisdictional approvals required to implement the project. The DEIR notes there are no significant unavoidable impacts requiring Council to make a statement of overriding considerations. Potential impacts from the project and mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a “less than significant” level are identified in these topic areas:  Air Quality (related to construction emissions),  Biological Resources (related to nesting birds and protected and street tree removals),  Cultural Resources (potential disturbance of archeological, paleontological and tribal resources),  Geology and Soils (geotechnical hazards related to excavation and grading),  Hazards and Hazardous materials (potential exposure to existing groundwater and soil contamination), and City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10  Noise (project construction noise, ground borne vibration from construction, project operational noise). The PSB Project and Downtown Garage project, even with the code amendment, would have no significant and unavoidable impacts. No projects other than the PSB Project and Downtown Garage project are currently contemplated to be affected by the proposed code amendment. Thus, there are no reasonably foreseeable future developments, physical changes to the environment or impacts that may result from the proposed ordinance. And as a result, environmental review of potential future developments would be an impossible task involving wholly speculative evaluation of impacts. As the DEIR states, “To the extent that other PF-zoned sites in the Downtown and California Avenue business districts are included by this ordinance revision, development of those sites would be subject to their own environmental review.” PTC Participation In April and May 2017, the PTC provided initial comments on the scope of environmental review of the Sherman Avenue and Hamilton Avenue parking garages, and PSB, during EIR scoping sessions. Links to the PTC reports and videos are provided below: The May 31, 2017 PTC Hamilton Avenue Project scoping meeting staff report is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57978, the video of the PTC meeting is viewable at: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-49/, and the minutes are viewable at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58628 The April 12, 2017 PTC PSB Project scoping meeting staff report is viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56874, the video of the PTC meeting is viewable at: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-46/, and the excerpt PTC minutes were provided in the Preliminary ARB report found here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58034 The PTC is requested to receive testimony on the DEIR, then focus comments on the portion of the DEIR that address the PF district text changes, which is the Land Use section (chapter 12). The PTC may discuss the DEIR more broadly and individual Commissioners may provide comments on other chapters following the PTC meeting. The relevant excerpt is provided below in italicized text: “Zoning Amendments. In order to meet the project’s program needs and objectives, the proposed PSB and parking garage would require amendments to the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose [PF, OS and AC] Districts), Sections 18.28.050, 18.28.060, and 18.28.090 to revise the Public Facilities (PF) zone parking and development standards to allow encroachments into the Minimum Setbacks (front, rear, interior side, and street side setbacks), Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and a public parking garage that would exceed Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR), City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Maximum Site Coverage, and Maximum Height (including within 150 feet of a residential district) in the Public Facilities zone. Also, the PAMC currently limits the monopole height to 65 feet; therefore, the proposed monopole, at 135 feet, would exceed City height restrictions. The same PF zone regulations being processed for the public parking garage include zoning text changes to allow for the planned monopole and alley setback encroachment by the PSB. To the extent that other PF-zoned sites are included by this ordinance revision, those sites would be subject to their own environmental review. PSB Project DEIR and Comments Process For CEQA purposes, development of the two Sherman Avenue sites is considered one project, though separate entitlements can be issued following Council action on the EIR, and separate building permits are required for each building. Comments on the PSB Project DEIR during the 45 day review period can be submitted in writing or presented orally at the January 31, 2018 PTC hearing. Public comments on the DEIR were received at the January 18, 2018 ARB hearing of the public parking garage at 350 Sherman (which the ARB continued to March 1, 2018). The ARB staff report of January 18, 2018 for the Garage project is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62876. A video of the meeting on January 18, 2018 is viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo- alto/boards-and-commissions/architectural-review-board/. Minutes of the ARB meeting will be viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB members commented verbally on the aesthetics, biological resources, noise and transportation sections of the DEIR. Additionally, one ARB member provided written comments regarding the phrasing of the aesthetics chapter with respect to the design versions of the project (as the designs for both buildings are undergoing modifications). 375 Hamilton Avenue Project DEIR Publication The DEIR for the proposed parking garage with retail space at 375 Hamilton Avenue is anticipated to be released in February 2018. The analysis of the PF zone changes contained in the PSB Project DEIR would be applicable to the Hamilton Avenue project. Next Steps The pending Architectural Review applications for two garages and the public safety building (PSB) will benefit first from the PF zone changes; these applications are not subject to PTC review and recommendation, though the PTC’s comments are requested on the DEIR portion that addresses the PF ordinance modifications. The ARB conducted the first formal review of both Sherman Avenue projects in October (minutes are viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62441. The ARB reviewed the 350 Sherman Avenue parking garage again on January 18, 2018 and continued the hearing March 1, 2018. Revisions to the PSB plans are underway and a second ARB review of the PSB will be scheduled. The Hamilton Garage project and DEIR are scheduled City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 to be presented to the ARB in mid-February and continued to a date certain following the end of the project’s DEIR comment period. Council is tentatively scheduled to review the PF ordinance and the DEIRs for both the PSB and Downtown Garage projects in late spring 2018. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on January 12, 2018, which is 19 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no public comments on the ordinance changes had been received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the PTC may: 1. Suggest modified findings in the ordinance, or 2. Provide input and continue the review to a future hearing, date certain. Report Author & Contact Information PTC4 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2679 Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Draft ORD Amending Ch 18.28 PF Zone (PDF)  Attachment B: Zoning Compliance Table PSB and Garage (DOCX)  Attachment C: Zoning Compliance Table 375 Hamilton Avenue (DOCX)  Attachment D: DEIR (PTC MEMBERS HARDCOPIES, COVER MEMO TO WEBLINK) (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org NOT YET APPROVED Page 1 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts), Sections 18.28.050, 18.28.060 and 18.28.090 to Revise the Public Facilities (PF) Zone Parking and Development Standards to Allow Council Approval of Exceptions to PF Development Standards, Including Setback Lines Imposed By a Special Setback Map, and Required Parking Location for City Parking Facilities in the Downtown and California Avenue Business District and for Essential Services Buildings, and Make Other Clerical or Technical Corrections The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Section 18.28.050 (Site Development Standards), subsection (a) and Table 2, of Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows: 18.28.050 Site Development Standards (a) Development Standards Table 2 Special Purpose District Site Development Standards PF OS(5) AC Subject to Regulations in Chapter or Section: Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (acres) 10 5 Site Width (ft) 250 Site Depth (ft) 250 Minimum Setbacks (ft) Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code shall apply Section 18.28.060(e) Front Setback –(2) 30 30 Section 18.28.060(e) Rear Setback –(2) 30 30 Section 18.28.060(e) Interior Side Setback –(2) 30 15 Section 18.28.060(e), Chapter 20.08 Street Side Setback –(2) 30 24 Section 18.28.060(e) Maximum Floor Area Ratio 1:1(3) See Table 3 Section 18.28.050(b), 18.28.060(e) Site Coverage and Impervious Coverage Maximum Site Coverage 30%(3) 10% Section 18.28.060(e) NOT YET APPROVED Page 2 Additional Site Area permitted covered by impervious ground surfaces 10%(1) Maximum Impervious Coverage See Table 3(4) Section 18.28.050(b) 18.28.070(m) Height Restrictions Maximum Height (ft) 50 25 35 Section 18.28.060(e) Maximum Height within 150 feet of a residential district (ft) 35 Section 18.28.060(a) Maximum Number of Stories 2 Daylight Plane for site lines abutting a residential district Initial height (ft) 10 Slope 1:2 Residential Density 1 unit/acre (1) For cemetery uses, all markers of graves shall be flush with grade level, and shall be considered impervious area under this requirement. (2) The minimum front, side, and rear yards in the PF public facilities district shall be equal to the respective front, side, and rear yards required in the most restrictive abutting district; provided, that no yard adjoining a street shall be less than 20 feet and that no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet. See Section 18.28.060(e) for exceptions to these development standards. (3) Provided that, for parking facilities the maximum floor area ratio and site coverage shall be equal to the floor area ratio and site coverage established by the most restrictive adjacent district. See Section 18.28.060(e) for exceptions to these development standards. (4) Including buildings and all impervious ground surfaces, calculated pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.28.070(m). (5) See section Section 18.28.070(r) for specific exceptions to these development standards. . . . SECTION 2. Section 18.28.060 (Additional PF District Design Requirements) of Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to add a new subsection (e) to read as follows: 18.28.060 Additional PF District Design Requirements The following additional regulations shall apply in the PF district: . . . (e) Development Standards Exceptions The City Council may in its discretion modify the development standards in Table 2 of Section 18.28.050 and setback lines established by a special setback map under Chapter 20.08 of Title 20, to achieve community objectives for the following facilities: NOT YET APPROVED Page 3 (i) Parking facilities, including appurtenant structures, within the Downtown and the California Avenue business district, where the parking facility is the principal use and is owned or leased, and operated or used, by the City of Palo Alto. “California Avenue business district” means that area bounded by the following streets in the city of Palo Alto: Grant Avenue to the south, El Camino Real to the west, College Avenue to the north, and Park Boulevard to the east. (ii) Essential Services Buildings as defined in Health and Safety Code section 16007, as amended, including appurtenant or ancillary structures. The exceptions shall be included in the review of the project through the applicable development review process. SECTION 3. Section 18.28.090(a) (Parking and Loading) of Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows: 18.28.090 Parking and Loading Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all permitted and conditional uses in accord with Chapter 18.40. All parking and loading facilities on any site, whether required as minimums or optionally provided in addition to minimum requirements, shall comply with the regulations and the design standards established by Chapter 18.42. In addition, parking facilities shall be subject to the following regulations: (a) PF District In the PF district, no required parking space shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. The City Council may waive this requirement for eligible parking facilities and Essential Services Buildings through the process provided in Section 18.28.060(e). . . . SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. The environmental impacts of this ordinance have been examined and disclosed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with related state implementation guidelines and regulations (collectively, “CEQA”), under that certain Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building and California Avenue Garage project (“Final EIR”) considered and certified by the City Council on _________, for which NOT YET APPROVED Page 4 findings were adopted by Council by Resolution No. ________, all prior to Council approval of this ordinance. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: __________________________________ __________________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________________ __________________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager __________________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (PUBLIC FACILITIES (PF) DISTRICT) Regulation Required by PF Zone – Code to be Revised Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth 250 Sherman None 55,164 sf No change proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth 350 Sherman None 41,843 sf No change proposed PF Zone Setbacks - Minimum front, side, and rear yards in the PF zone shall be equal to the respective front, side, and rear yards of the most restrictive abutting district, provided no yard adjoining a street shall be less than 20 feet, and no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet – this provision is proposed to be modified PSB Front/Rear and Street Side Yard Setbacks (SB)  Park  Birch  Sherman 20 feet NA Park: SB 21’9=8” above grade, SB 0’ below grade; Birch: SB 48’ above grade to main building wall, 33’ to canopy edge, and 25’ to base of ramp cover, SB approx. 18’ below grade Sherman: SB 25’ above grade, SB below grade near Sherman Av PSB Interior Side Yard Jacaranda Lane 10 feet NA Building SB is 20’ or greater (SB range: 36’3” to 46’3” until second jog in property line), SB below grade is within 10 feet CMU wall/Fence SB is 10’ until employee garden where SB to CMU wall is 3’2”’ for length of 40’ approx. wall height exceeds four feet Parking Garage Front/Rear and Street Side Yard Setbacks  Birch  Ash  Sherman 20 feet NA Building encroaches above & below, all frontages Birch: SB 11’2” above grade, 36’ below grade; Ash: SB 0’ above grade, likely same SB below grade (section not provided in set) Sherman: 0’ SB above grade, 0’ SB below grade. Parking Garage Interior Side Yard Jacaranda Lane 10 feet minimum NA SB is 2’3” over 2/3 of the wall length; where property line jogs into Jacaranda Lane, SB is met. PSB Site Coverage – based on most restrictive adjacent district (PF zone, which allows 30% coverage and 1:1 FAR) 30% NA 29.2% Garage Site Coverage - (or equal to adjacent most restrictive district, or PF) 30% NA Site Coverage 89.3% (compare to CC(2) which allows 100% site coverage and RM-40 which allows 45% site coverage) PSB - Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR); 1:1 NA 0.74:1 Garage - Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR); note: 18.04.030 (B)(i) only exempts parking facilities that are accessory to a permitted or conditional use on the same site; the parking garage is not accessory use 1:1 (the most restrictive adjacent district) NA FAR 3.57:1 PSB - Max. Building Height; SW corner is within 150’ of residential RM-40 zone 35’ at SW corner of PSB site within 150’ of residential zone; 50’ elsewhere NA 49 feet building (PSB is not within 150’ of residential zone) 139’ emergency telecom tower Parking Garage Max Height; SE corner is within 150’ of residential RM=40 zone 35’ SE corner of Garage site within 150’ of residential zone NA 40’7” to top of parking structure and approximately 49 feet to the top of PV structure; height exceeds 35 feet within 150’ radius of RM-40 Daylight Plane for site lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone 10’ up and 1:2 slope NA NA 250 Sherman PSB number of parking spaces Other uses not listed 155 public spaces 162 spaces for PSB; PCE Director determines parking requirement for use not listed 350 Sherman Parking Structure number of spaces NA 143 public spaces 636 public spaces (replaces the existing spaces on both blocks (143 + 155) and adds 338 spaces ATTACHMENT F ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 375 Hamilton Avenue Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 29,164 sf 29,164 sf PF Setbacks - Minimum front, side, and rear yards in the PF zone shall be equal to the respective front, side, and rear yards of the most restrictive abutting district, provided no yard adjoining a street shall be less than 20 feet, and no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet – this provision would need to be modified for public parking structures Front Yard (Waverley) 0’ in CD district (10’) NA Approximately 2 feet to wall (encroaches 8’) – 0’ to columns - PF code to be revised Rear Yard (next to ATT bldg) 10 feet NA 2 feet (encroaches 8’) – PF code to be revised Interior Side Yard (at CVS and backing Waverley addressed lots) 10 feet NA 10 feet – CVS and side of Tai Pan, 16 feet- from rear lines of Waverley buildings Street Side Yard (Hamilton, special setback) PAMC 20.08 special setback line: Seven feet on Hamilton; PF Zone requires 20 feet NA Approximately 2 feet to wall, 0’ to columns (encroaches 18 feet into PF 20’ setback, and 5’ into 7’ special setback) – PF code to be revised Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) NA (not abutting 510 Waverley, CDC- GF-P, may have residential use on upper floor) NA Build-to-lines NA NA NA Max. Site Coverage Equal to site coverage established by most restrictive adjacent district (CD) NA NA Max. Building Height 50 feet NA 63’ stair/elev. Tower 58’6” to top of PV structure 48’10” elsewhere – PF code to be revised Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Equal to FAR established by most restrictive adjacent district (1:1 for non-residential use in CDC zone with increase allowed with TDR not to exceed 3:1 in CDC) NA 139,217 sf - Including below grade parking area (27,834.4 sf for each of four floors above grade plus 27,834.4 sf below grade); for FAR calculation, 111,383 sf above grade (3.8:1 FAR) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM- 40 or PC Zone None NA NA ATTACHMENT D DEIR hardcopies to PTC Members and Libraries only The DEIR can be reviewed on the City’s PSB project webpage http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3339&TargetID=1 45 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 8431) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/31/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Annual Office Limit - Replacement Ordinance Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Recommend that the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) to Add a New Section Imposing an Annual Office Limit and Setting Forth Related Regulations, and to Repeal the Respective Regulations from Chapter 18.85 (Interim Zoning Ordinances). The Proposed Ordinance will perpetuate the existing annual limit of 50,000 square feet of new office/R&D development per year with modifications regarding the review process, unallocated area rollover provisions, and exemptions as discussed by the City Council on September 5, 2017. CEQA: This Ordinance is within the scope of the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified and adopted on November 13, 2017 by Council Resolution Nos. 9720 and 9721. For More Information, Please Contact Clare Campbell at clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code to perpetuate the existing Annual Office Limit (AOL) regulations and make adjustments requested by the City Council, and find the action within the scope of the Comprehensive Plan EIR certified on November 13, 2017. Executive Summary City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The City of Palo Alto’s annual office limit regulations were adopted in September 2015 in an attempt to moderate the pace of office/R&D development in the fastest changing areas of the City (Council report #6045, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48971 ). The regulations were originally adopted as an interim ordinance to expire in November 2017. These regulations were extended to a June 30, 2018 expiration date to align with the end of the fiscal year and allow for preparation of replacement ordinance. As part of this work effort, staff met with both the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and City Council to get feedback and direction for the replacement Annual Office Limit (AOL) regulations. The Council direction provided on September 5, 2017, informed by the PTC’s input, has guided the proposed revisions shown in the draft ordinance (Attachment A). Background In the summer of 2014, as part of a discussion on the Comprehensive Plan update, the community expressed concern that the then-current Comprehensive Plan’s approach to growth management (i.e. an overall “cap” on non-residential development) had not been effective at moderating the pace of growth and development in the robust economic recovery following the great recession. This growth, in turn, had several impacts on Palo Alto residents, including traffic congestion/delay, parking demand, increased housing costs, and more. Based on these early communications, City staff began developing a growth management policy that moderated or metered the rate of development, rather than the overall amount of development in the City. Over the course of six meetings from January through June of 2015, the City Council discussed the concept of limiting the pace of new office/R&D development, which resulted in the adoption of the Annual Office Limit (AOL) interim ordinance in September 2015. Interim Ordinance The Council adopted interim Ordinance #53571 to establish an annual limit on new office/R&D development in the areas of the City experiencing the most rapid change.2 The ordinance applied to office development in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, established applicable land uses, designated the commercial areas affected, identified development exemptions, and outlined other procedural items. The Council also approved a review process for proposals once the 50,000 sq. ft. limit was reached. The ordinance was to be in effect for a limited duration, until November 26, 2017, to pilot the new interim procedures, and the results of which would then help guide in the refinement of the future regulations. In September 2017, Council adopted Ordinance #54173 to extend the existing AOL regulations until the end of fiscal year 2018 (June 30, 2018). This additional time was needed to prepare and bring forward an amended ordinance. AOL Project Activity 1 Ordinance #5357: https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51037 2 09/21/2015 City Council Staff Report #6045: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48971 3 Ordinance #5417: https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61686 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Subsequent to the implementation of the AOL ordinance, there has not been any significant office development proposed in the ordinance-affected areas. Although the time period has been relatively short, it appears that the interim ordinance has reduced the amount of applications for net new office projects. A list of the AOL applicable projects is provided in Attachment D. The first round of analysis for qualifying AOL projects was in March 2016 and the 50,000 sq. ft. limit was not exceeded; there were three projects proposed totaling 40,863 sq. ft. In March 2017, the 50,000 sq. ft. threshold was again not exceeded since there were no qualifying office projects ready for approval. For March 2018, there are three projects on file totaling 16,790 sq. ft. of new office development that may potentially be ready for approval. Discussion On March 29, 2017, the PTC conducted a Study Session4 to provide comments to staff regarding future amendments to the AOL regulations. There were a range of comments provided and those were summarized and forwarded to Council for consideration during their Study Session review. Some comments provided by members of the PTC included not allowing for small office projects to be exempt; include the Stanford Research Park in the applicable affected boundary; and, allow for rollover of unallocated area. The PTC’s summarized comments are provided in the attached Council staff report #8234 (Attachment G, pages 6-7) and detailed in the PTC’s meeting minutes (Attachment I). City Council conducted a Study Session on September 5, 2017 and provided direction on the key components of the AOL regulations, which are provided below. The Council report and verbatim minutes are also attached for reference. 1. Areas Subject to the Annual Office Limit The City Council directed the ordinance apply to Downtown, California Avenue and El Camino Real corridor. This boundary is unchanged from the interim regulations and a map showing this boundary is provided in Attachment C. The Council considered but rejected expanding the boundary citywide or to the Stanford Research Park. 2. Square Footage Limit The City Council directed staff to use a 50,000 square foot (sf) threshold for the annual limit for office development, based upon review of the VTA’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) office/R&D development data spanning 2001 through 2015. From 2001 through 2017, the CMP data shows there were six years when office/R&D development in the commercial districts affected by the interim ordinance exceeded 50,000 sf. 4 03/29/2017 PTC Staff Report #7799: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56641 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 (FY2006, FY2007, FY2010, FY2012, FY2014, and FY2015). Within the three ordinance-affected areas, the average annual development over the 17 years was approximately 39,459 sq. ft., with a range from 0-106,829 sq. ft. A table summarizing this development activity is provided as Attachment E.5 The options considered by Council were to modify the threshold or retain the existing one; the Council selected the current threshold. 3. Unused Square Footage Allocations A related issue to the annual limit number is consideration of allowing the roll-over of unused floor area. The Council considered four options, one with no change and three that allowed rollover but with various criteria regarding an expiration time and a carryover cap on square footage. Ultimately, the Council directed the unallocated floor area to carry over for a maximum of one year only. 4. Exemptions Small office projects up to 2,000 sf and medical office less than or equal to 5,000 sf are exempt from the AOL regulations. The Council did not express concerns about the existing exemptions, but did want to see a provision added for nonprofit office use. Accordingly, the Council directed staff to include a provision to exempt deed-restricted nonprofit office uses less than 5,000 sf. 5. Review Process The current process under the interim ordinance requires a competitive approach when the 50,000 sf threshold is exceeded. There is a subjective evaluation that must occur for each of the projects for ranking purposes, which is then forwarded to Council for consideration. This process is untested because thus far the 50,000 sf threshold has not been exceeded. Staff anticipates that this process may be challenging to implement because of its subjective nature. This process is also time-intensive for the applicant and staff, and does not provide any assurances to the developer that their project will be approved now or in the future. The natural side effect of this ambiguity is the reluctance of developers to propose office projects in the City. An alternative to the competitive process is to approve projects on a first-come first-served basis. This approach would prioritize project approvals in order of when the application is ready for approval. Any number of projects could be approved, depending on their size, up to and until the 50,000 sf threshold is reached, plus any carry over floor area from the previous year. This approach would obviate the need for approvable projects to wait until March 30. If it happens that there is more than one office project ready to approve, and circumstances are such that not all can be approved due to reaching the annual limit, then the approval priority shall be given in order of the earliest project submittal date. The Council directed the ordinance implement the first-come first-served approach. 5 The CMP data includes all office and R&D development, including projects that are exempt from the AOL ordinance. This explains the square footage difference in the CMP data (Attachment E) and the approved AOL projects (Attachment D) for FY2016. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Policy Implications Like the previous Comprehensive Plan, the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan 2030 includes a policy (Policy L-1.10) establishing an overall cap on commercial development. The new Comprehensive Plan policy establishes the cap at 1.7 million square feet, which is the amount remaining under the previous 3.2 million square feet cap, and modifies the cap to apply only to office and research-and-development (R&D) uses citywide. This means that for the first time, conversions of existing buildings from other uses (e.g. retail, warehouse) to office/R&D uses will count against the citywide cap.6 An AOL focused on a subset of the City will complement this citywide development cap. The Comprehensive Plan does not include an explicit policy about an annual limit on office/R&D, but was informed by City Council discussions on this topic. Specifically, during the City Council’s deliberations regarding scenarios for analysis in the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the Council elected to study and ultimately to select a scenario with limited job growth in large part because of their stated intention to establish the interim AOL as a permanent ordinance. Environmental Review This proposed ordinance is within the scope of the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified and adopted on November 13, 2017 by Council Resolution No. 9720. The Final EIR includes a discussion of using a limit for office/R&D development as a tool for growth management (Section 2.1.2, Chapter 2 “Preferred Scenario”). No additional environmental analysis is warranted at this time. For all projects that are proposed and are subject to the AOL regulations, project specific analysis would be completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper at least ten day in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on January 19, 2018. In order to inform the community about the efforts to prepare the replacement Annual Office Limit ordinance, staff informed various known developers, property owners, architects, and resident groups about this meeting via electronic notification. In addition, a project information page on the City’s website is maintained to keep the public up-to-date on meeting dates and staff reports. 6 Policy L-1.10: Maintain a citywide cap of 1.7 million new square feet of office/R&D development, exempting medical office uses in the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) vicinity. Use January 1, 2015 as the baseline and monitor development towards the cap on an annual basis. Require annual monitoring to assess the effectiveness of development requirements and determine whether the cap and the development requirements should be adjusted. Continue to exempt medical, governmental and institutional uses from the cap on office/R&D development. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Next Steps Following recommendation from the PTC, staff will forward the draft ordinance to Council for review. The existing AOL interim regulations will expire on June 30, 2018, and in order to have a replacement ordinance in place by that time, Council would need to take action no later than early May. Staff anticipates going to City Council for review and action on the replacement ordinance in March 2018. Following the Council’s action, staff will update the Administrative Guidelines for the program to reflect Council’s decision. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission may: 1. Recommend adoption of the draft ordinance to the City Council with modifications. 2. Continue the discussion to a future PTC hearing with the expectation that a recommendation to the City Council would be forwarded that time. Report Author & Contact Information PTC7 Liaison & Contact Information Clare Campbell, AICP, Senior Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 617-3191 (650) 329-2679 clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Proposed Draft Ordinance (PDF)  Attachment B: Existing Office Limit Regulations (PAMC 18.85) (PDF)  Attachment C: Map of Areas Affected by Annual Office Limit (PDF)  Attachment D: Approved and Pending Projects Subject to AOL (DOCX)  Attachment E: Office Development Summary FY 2001-2017 (PDF)  Attachment F: Annual Office Limit Administrative Guidelines (PDF)  Attachment G: Council Report #8234 w/o Attachments, September 5, 2017 (PDF)  Attachment H: Council Meeting Excerpt Verbatim Minutes, September 5, 2017 (PDF)  Attachment I: PTC Meeting Excerpt Verbatim Minutes, March 29, 2017 (PDF) 7 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Ordinance No. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Section 18.85.200 (Annual Office Limit) to Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Imposing an Office Annual Limit of 50,000 Net New Square Feet in Designated Areas of City, and Repealing Those Provisions Related to the Annual Office Limit in Chapter 18.85 (Interim Zoning Ordinances) The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The City of Palo Alto has long been considered the birth place of Silicon Valley. With its proximity to Stanford University, its international reputation, its deep ties to technology firms, its highly rated public school system and its ample public parks, open space and community centers, Palo Alto continues to serve as a hub for technology-based business. B. Palo Alto is considered one of Silicon Valley's most desirable office markets. According to one study Class A office rates have climbed 49 percent since the start of 2010. The same study reported Class B office space increasing by 114.4 % since 2010. C. In particular, average commercial rental rates have gone up significantly from 2013 to 2015. In 2013 the average monthly rental rate citywide for office was $4.57 per square foot. That rate increased to $5.12 in 2015. D. As a result, prior to adoption of the interim annual office limit in 2015, the City saw a steady increase of new Office and Research and Development (R&D) projects. According to data submitted by the City to support the Valley Transportation Authority’s Congestion Management Plan (CMP), since 2001, the City has added 234,002 of net new square feet of office/R& D development in the California Avenue area; 315,586 in the downtown area, and 46,210 in the El Camino Real corridor. E. The rate of change has been faster than anticipated, resulting in changes in the character of the City’s commercial districts. The changes have also resulted in additional parking demand, traffic, and greenhouse gas emissions, and negatively impact the City’s jobs/housing ratio. F. Based on the CMP data, there have been six years since 2001 in which more than 50,000 net new square feet of Office/R&D development have been entitled in these districts combined, and these six years include the last two (fiscal years 2014 and 2015). G. Record high monthly rental rates for office space and low vacancy rates suggest that the rapid pace of development is likely to continue, putting pressure on sites that are not currently developed to their maximum potential, and contributing to a feeling in the community that the character of the City’s commercial districts are changing too fast. H. Based on the above findings, the City adopted interim annual office limit 2 regulations by Ordinance No. 5357, later extended by Ordinance No. 5417, which applied to three fiscal years (FY 2016-2018). Under these interim regulations, the pace of Office/R&D development in the covered areas has moderated. I. Continuing the annual office limit serves the public interest and general welfare, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and objectives, including improving the jobs to housing imbalance by limiting the growth of employment-generating development. SECTION 2. A new Section 18.40.190 (Annual Office Limit) is added to Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: 18.40.190 Annual Office Limit (a) Applicability The regulations set forth in this Section shall apply to all Office Annual Limit Land Uses that are established by new construction or through the conversion of existing development (b) Definitions For purposes of this Section, the following terms shall have the definitions below: (1) “Office Annual Limit Area” means the area shown in Exhibit A (attached to Ordinance No. ______), comprising portions of the commercial districts of Downtown, the California Avenue Area and the El Camino Real corridor. (2) “Office Annual Limit Land Uses” shall include any of the following uses, each as defined in Section 18.04.030, in the Office Annual Limit Area: (A) Research and Development; (B) Administrative Office Services; (C) General Business Office; (D) Medical Office greater than 5,000 net new square feet; and (E) Professional Office. (c) Office Annual Limit No more than 50,000 net new square feet of Office Annual Limit Land Uses per fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) shall be approved by the City in the Office Annual Limit Area. (1) The 50,000 square foot limit imposed by this Section shall not apply to exempt projects as defined in subsection (d) of this Section and such projects shall not be counted towards this limit. However, if an exempt medical office project under subsection (d)(1) or exempt City office use under subsection (d)(3) is subsequently converted to a non-exempt Office Annual Limit Land Use, the associated square footage shall be counted toward the 3 50,000 square foot limit for the fiscal year in which the conversion is requested or occurs. (2) The 50,000 square foot limit shall apply to existing building area previously used by non-office uses and converted to any of the Office Annual Limit Land Uses. (3) The removal of existing Office Annual Limit Land Uses through demolition or conversion shall increase the amount of capacity available for allocation in that fiscal year by the amount of square footage removed. (4) Unallocated square footage of Office Annual Limit Land Uses shall be carried over to the next fiscal year and be available for allocation until the end of that fiscal year only. (5) Notwithstanding subsections (3) and (4) above, at no time shall the annual office limit for a single fiscal year exceed 100,000 square feet. (6) This restriction shall be in addition to any other applicable growth restriction including but not limited to Comprehensive Plan Policy L-1.10. In the event multiple policies apply to a project, the policy most restrictive of growth shall apply. (d) Exemptions The following projects shall be exempt from the Office Annual Limit established by this Section, provided that only one exemption shall be permitted per project site. (1) Small Projects. Projects comprised of 2,000 net new square feet or fewer of Office Annual Limit Land Uses, including accessory office space that is incidental to and customarily associated with a principal use or facility. This exemption shall be increased to 5,000 net new square feet or fewer where the net new square footage is devoted to Medical Office or nonprofit office use with a deed restriction to maintain the use for and by a nonprofit organization. (2) Self-Mitigating Projects. Projects that would both: (1) provide rental housing for more workers than would be employed in the project; and (2) provide substantial transportation demand management strategies (individually or in cooperation with other projects or programs) to improve the current parking and traffic conditions. (3) City Office Space. New office space used by the City of Palo Alto. (e) Economic Hardship Waiver or Adjustment An applicant may request that the requirements of this Section be adjusted or waived based on a showing that applying the requirements of this Section would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. The applicant shall bear the burden of presenting evidence to support a waiver or modification request under this Section and shall set forth in detail the factual and legal basis 4 for the claim, including all supporting technical documentation. Any such request under this section shall be submitted to the Director together with an economic analysis or other supporting documentation and shall be acted upon by the City Council. (f) Allocation of Office Square Footage for Projects Subject to the Office Annual Limit (1) Office development capacity for Office Annual Limit Land Uses shall be allocated upon approval of a planning entitlement, or a building permit or Certificate of Use and Occupancy if no planning entitlement is required, in the order that the projects are approved. (A) If a planning entitlement approved by the Director is appealed to the City Council, the project shall be allowed to retain the office allocation provided that the Director’s approval decision is upheld by City Council. If the City Council overturns the Director’s approval decision and denies the project, the office allocation shall be forfeited and made available to other projects. (B) If the planning entitlement or building permit with which the project received an office allocation expires, the office allocation shall be forfeited and made available to other projects. A project that received an office allocation at issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy for the purposes of converting existing developed non-office space to one or more Office Annual Limit Land Uses, shall forfeit its office allocation if the related building permit expires and the office allocation will be made available to other projects. However, if the expiration of the planning entitlement or building permit occurs in a later fiscal year than when the office allocation was made, the forfeited office allocation will only be made available to other projects if it would not cause the annual office limit for that fiscal year to exceed 100,000 square feet. (2) If more than one project will be considered for approval on the same day, then the project with the earliest initial submittal date shall have priority in receiving office allocation. (3) Projects that cannot be approved due to the Office Annual Limit being reached for that fiscal year shall be considered for approval the following fiscal year. (g) Implementation The Director shall have the authority to adopt rules or procedures for the efficient and equitable implementation of these regulations. SECTION 3. Sections 18.85.200 through 18.85.270, all of which pertain to the Annual Office Limit in Chapter 18.85 (Interim Zoning Ordinances) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are hereby repealed. 5 SECTION 4. Supersede. This Ordinance supersedes any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. SECTION 7. CEQA. The City Council finds that the environmental impacts of this Ordinance were disclosed, analyzed and evaluated as part of that certain Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive Plan Update considered and certified by the City Council on November 13, 2017, by Resolution Nos. 9720 and 9721 (“EIR”). The City Council considered the EIR prior to taking action on this Ordinance, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), together with state and local regulations implementing CEQA. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Manager ______________________________ Assistant City Attorney ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment CJL Stanford Shopping Center Downtown/Unniversity Area UniversityStation PAMF Town & Country California AvenueArea Fry's Site Stanford Research Park El Camino RealCorridor El Camino RealCorridor El Camino RealCorridor Alma Plaza Stanford MedicalCenter CharlestonCenter R-1 San AntonioArea San AntonioArea Midtown West BayshoreArea EdgewoodPlaza East BayshoreArea MSC Embarcadero EastArea SOFA I SOFA II R-1 R-1 (7000) East MeadowCircle s J u n i p e r o S e r r a B o u l e v a r d P a g e M i l l R o ad R o a d E l C a m i n o R e a l S a n A n t o n i o A v e n u e C h a r l e s t o n R oa d O re g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a d U niversity Avenue y 1 0 1 A l m a S t r e e t El Camino Real n e R o a d F o o t h i l l E x p r e s Hi l l vi e w E a st B a y s h or e W e st B a y s h o r e Fabian S a n d Hill R oa d E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Wallis Ct Donald Drive Encina Grande Drive Cereza Drive Los Robles Avenue Villa Vera Verdosa DriveCampana DriveSolana Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way Driscoll Ct ngArthur' Maybell Way Maybell Avenue Frandon Ct Florales Drive Georgia AvenueAmaranta Avenue Amaranta Ct Ki sCourt Terman Drive Baker Avenue Vista Avenue Wisteria Ln Pena Ct Coulombe Drive Cherry Oaks Pl Pomona Avenue Arastradero Road Abel Avenue Clemo Avenue Villa Real El Camino Way Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenue Maclane Emerson Street Ventura Ct Park Boulevard Magnolia Dr South El Camino Real Cypress Lane GlenbrookD Fairmede Avenue Arastradero Road Irven Court Los Palos CirLosPalosPl Maybell Avenue Alta Mesa Ave Kelly Way Lo s Palos Avenue Suzanne Drive Suzanne Drive rive El Camino Real Suzanne CtLorabelle Ct Mc Kellar Lane El Camino Way James Road Maclane Second Street Wilkie Way Camino Ct West Meadow Drive Thain Way Barclay CtVictoria Place Interdale Way West Charleston Road Tennessee LaneWilkie Wa y Carolina LaneTennessee Lane Park Boulevard Wilkie Ct Davenport Way Alma Street Roosev Monroe Drive Wilkie Way Whitclem Pl Whitclem DriveDuluth Circle Edlee Avenue Dinah's Court Cesano Court Monroe Drive Miller Avenue Whitclem Wy Whitclem Ct Ferne Avenue Ben Lomond Drive Fairfield Court Ferne Avenue Ponce Drive Hemlock Court Ferne Court Alma Street Monroe Drive San Antonio Avenue NitaAvenue Ruthelma Avenue Darlington Ct Charleston Road LundyLane Newberry Ct Park Boulevard George Hood Ln Alma Street eltCircle LinderoDrive Wright Place StarrKingCircle Shasta Drive Mackay Drive Diablo Court Scripps Avenue Scripps Court Nelson Drive Tioga Court Creekside Drive Greenmeadow Way Ben Lomond Drive Parkside Drive Dixon Place Ely Place Dake Avenue Ferne Avenue San Antonio Court (Private) ChristopherCourt CalcaterraPlace Ely Place Ely Place Adobe Place Nelson Court ByronStreet Keats Court Middlefield Road Duncan Place Carlson Court Duncan Place Mumford Place Charleston Road San Antonio Avenue East Meadow Drive Emerson Street Court BryantStreet RooseveltCircle RamonaStreet CarlsonCircle RedwoodCircle South Leghorn Street Montrose Avenue Maplewood Charleston Ct Charleston Road Seminole Way Sutherland Drive Nelson Drive El C apitan Place Fabian Street Loma Verde Avenue Bryson Avenue Midtown Court Cowper Street Gary Court Waverley StreetSouth CourtBryant StreetRamona Street Alma Street Coastland Drive Colorado Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Court Moreno Avenue Coastland Drive El Carmelo Avenue RosewoodD Campesino Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Ramona Street Bryant Street Towle Way Towle Place Wellsbury Ct AvalonCourt FlowersLane Mackall Way Loma Verde Avenue KiplingStreet Cowper Street South Court Waverley StreetEl Verano Avenue Wellsbury Way La Middlefield Road St Claire Drive Alger Drive Ashton Avenue St Michael DriveSt Michael Drive Maureen Avenue Cowper Court Rambow Drive East Meadow Drive Ashton Court Murdoch DriveCowperStreet Murdoch Ct St Michael Court MayCourt Mayview Avenue Middlefield Road Ensign Way Bibbits Drive Gailen CtGailen Avenue Grove Avenue San Antonio Avenue Commercial Street Industrial Avenue Bibbits Drive Charleston Road Fabian Way T East Meadow Drive Grove Avenue Christine Drive Corina Way Ross Road Corina W ay Louis Road Nathan Way Transport Street Ortega Court East Meadow Drive yneCourt alisman Loma Verde Avenue Allen Court Ross Court Loma Verde Pl Ames Avenue Richardson Court Holly Oak Drive Ames Avenue CorkOakWay Middlefield Road A mes Ct Ames Avenue Ross Road Rorke Way RorkeWay Stone LaneToyon Place Torreya Court Lupine Avenue Thornwood Drive DriftwoodDrive Talisman Drive Arbutus AvenueRoss Road Louis Road Aspen WayEvergreen Drive East Meadow Drive Corporation WayElwell Court Janice Way East Mead ow Circle East Meadow Circle GreerRoad Bayshore Freeway rive Ellsworth PlaceSan Carlos Court Wintergreen Way SutterAvenue Sutter Avenue Clara Drive Price CourtStern Avenue Colorado Avenue Randers Ct Ross Road Sycamore Drive Sevyson Ct Stelling Drive Ross Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling DriveStelling Ct ManchesterCourt Kenneth Drive ThomasDriveGreer Road Stockton Place Vernon Terrace Louis Road Janice Way Thomas DriveKenneth Drive Loma Verde Avenue CliftonCourtElbridgeWay Clara Drive BautistaCourt Stockton Place Morris Drive Maddux Drive Piers Ct Louis Road Moraga Ct Old Page Mill Road D CoyoteHillRoad Hillview Avenue Porter Drive Hillview Avenue Hanover Street Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Stanford Avenue Amherst Street Columbia StreetBowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Page Mill Road Hansen Way Hanover Street Arastradero Road Miranda Avenue e Hill Avenue anuela Avenue Miranda Avenue Laguna Ct Barron Avenue Josina Avenue Kendall Avenue Tippawingo St Julie Ct Matadero Avenue Ilima Way Ilima Court Laguna Oaks Pl Carlitos Ct La CalleLaguna Avenue ElCerrit Paradise Way Roble Ridge (Private) LaMataWay Chimalus Drive Matader o Avenue oRoad Paul Avenue Kendall Avenue Whitsell Avenue Barron Avenue Los Robles Avenue Lag u na Way ShaunaLane La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue El Centro Street TimlottLa Jennifer Way Magnolia Dr North La Donna Avenue LosRoblesAvenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle Crosby Pl Georgia Av enue Hubbartt Drive Willmar Drive Donald Drive Arastradero Road Foothill Expres La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue Magnolia Drive Military Way Arbol Drive Orme Street Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way El Camino Real Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California Avenue Wellesley Street Princeton StreetOberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College AvenueWilliams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford AvenueEl Camino Real Churchill Avenue Park Boulevard Park Avenue Escobita Aven ue Churchill Avenue Sequoia Avenue Mariposa Avenue Castilleja Avenue Miramonte Avenue Madron o Aven u e Portola Avenu e Manzanita Avenue Coleridge Avenue Leland Avenue Stanford AvenueBirch Street Ash Street Lowell Avenue Alma Street Tennyson Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan AvenueJacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard College Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield Lane Birch Street California Avenue Park Boulevard Nogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Avenue Santa Rita Avenue WaverleyStree Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Colorado AvenueStreet Emerson Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado AvenueAlma Street Alma Street HighStreet t Emerson Waverley Oaks Washington Avenue Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson StreetNevada Avenue North California Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Ramona Street High Street North California Avenue Oregon Expressway Marion Avenue Ramona Street Colorado Avenue Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Cowper Street Anton CourtNevada Avenue Tasso Street Tasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Pl Webster Street Middlefield Road Ross Road Warren Way El Cajon Way Embarcadero RoadPrimrose Way Iris Way Tulip Lane Tulip Lane Garland Drive Louis Road Greer Road MortonStreet Greer Road Hamilton Avenue Hilbar LaneAlannah Ct Edge Rhodes Drive Marshall Drive FieldinMoreno AvenueMarshallDrive Dennis Drive Agnes Way Oregon AvenueBlair Court Santa Ana Street Elsinore DriveElsinore CourtEl Cajon Way Greer RoadNorth California Avenue gDrive Colorado Avenue Sycamore Drive Amarillo Avenue VanAukenCircle Bruce Drive Colonial Lane Moreno Avenue Celia Drive Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale Pl C Tanland Drive Moreno Avenue Amarillo Avenue West Bayshore Road Sandra Place Clara DriveColorado Avenue Greer Road Colorado Avenue Simkins Court Otterson CtHiggins PlaceLawrence Lane Maddux Drive Genevieve Ct MetroCircle MoffettCircle Greer Road East Bayshore Road ardinalWay Santa Catalina Street ArrowheadWayAztec Way Chabot Terrace Oregon Avenue Carmel Drive SierraCourt StFrancisDrive West Bayshore Road Tanland Drive East Bayshore Road woodDrive Edgewood Drive WildwoodLane Ivy Lane East Bayshore Road St Francis Drive Wildwood Lane Watson Court Laura Lane Sandalwood Ct O'Brine Lane (Private) Embarcadero Road FaberPlace Embarcadero Road Geng Road Embarcadero Way E Sand Hill Road Quarry Road Welch Road Arboretum Road Quarry Road Sand Hill Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Embarcadero Road Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Channing Avenue Alma Street Alma Street PaloAltoA El Camino Real venue Mitchell Lane Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Ruthven Avenue Hawthorne Avenue Lane 33 PaloAltoAvenue Everett Avenue Poe Street Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Byron Street Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Churchill Avenue Lowell Avenue Seale AvenueTennyson Avenue Melville Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street North California Avenue Coleridge Avenue Waverley Street Bryant Street Emerson Street Kellogg Avenue Kingsley Avenue Portal Place Ross Road Oregon Avenue Garland Drive Lane A West Lane B West Lane B East Lane D West Lane 59 East Whitman Court Kellogg AvenueEmbarcadero Road Kingsley Avenue Lincoln AvenueAddison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue Lane D East Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant StreetRamona Street Addison AvenueScott Street Byron Street Palo Hale Street Seneca Street Lytton Avenue Guinda Street PaloAltoAvenue Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Forest Avenue Webster Street Kellogg Avenue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Cowper Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Boyce Avenue Forest AvenueHamilton Avenue Homer AvenueGuinda Street Middlefield Road Channing Avenue AltoAvenue Chaucer Street Chaucer Street University Avenue Channing Avenue Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Regent Pl Guinda StreetLincoln Avenue Fulton Street Melville Avenue Byron Street Kingsley Avenue Melville Avenue Hamilton AvenueHamilton Court Forest AvenueForest Ct Marlowe St Maple Stree Palm Street Somerset Pl Pitman Avenue Fife Avenue Forest Avenue Dana Avenue Lincoln Avenue University Avenue Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Fulton StreetCowper Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Northampton Drive West Greenwich Pl Middlefield Road Newell RoadGuinda Street East Greenwich Pl Southampton Drive Webster Street Kirby Pl Kent Place Tevis Pl Martin Avenue Center Drive Harriet Street Wils o n S t r e e t Cedar Street Harker Avenue Greenwood Avenue Hutchinson Avenue Channing Avenue Hopkins Avenue Embarcadero Road Ashby Drive Dana Avenue Hamilton Avenue Pitman Avenue Southwood Drive West CrescentDrive C University Avenue Center Drive East Crescen Arcadia Place Louisa Court Newell Pl Sharon Ct Erstwild Court Walter Hays Drive Walnut Drive Newell Road Parkinson AvenuePine Street Mark Twain Street Louis RoadBarbara Drive Primrose Way Iris Way Embarcadero Road Walter Hays Drive Lois Lane Jordan Pl Lois Lane Heather Lane Bret Harte Street Stanley Way De Soto DriveDe Soto Drive Alester Avenue Walter Hays Drive Channing Avenue Iris Way tDrive Dana Avenue Hamilton AvenueNewell RoadKings Lane Edgewood Drive Island Drive Jefferson Drive JacksonDrive Patricia LaneMadison Way EdgewoodDrive Ramona Street Addison AvenueChanning Avenue Waverley Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Middlefield Road Byron StreetWebster Street Marion AvenueWelch Road Sedro Lane Peral Lane McGregor Way Monroe Drive Silva Avenue Silva Court Miller Court Briarwood Way Driscoll Place Paulsen Ln Community Lane Lane 15 E Court Madeline Ct David Ct Green Ct Oregon Expressway Oregon Expressway Sheridan Avenue Page Mill Road Page Mill Road Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Foothill Expressway Cerrito Way Emerson Street Miranda Avenue Lane 20 WLane 20 E Oregon ExpresswayUniversity Avenue Jacob's Ct CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Clark Way Durand Way Sand Hill Road Swain Way Clark Way Mosher Way Charles Marx Way Orchard Lane Vineyard Lane Oak Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Hillv Lane 66 Bryant Street Ramona Street Blake Wilbur Drive West Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway West Bayshore Road East Bays hore Road East Bayshore Road East Bays hore Road West Bayshore Road East Bays hore Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Fabian Way Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Palo Road Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way London Plane Way Plum Lane Sweet Olive Wa y Pear Lane Lane 66 La Selva Drive Grove Ct Stanford Avenue Lane 12 WLane 5 E Lasuen Street Serra Mall Escondido Road Olmsted Road Phillips Road Pistache Place Santa Ynez Street Lane B Lane C El Dorado Avenue Oak Creek Drive Clara Drive Bellview Dr Everett Avenue Homer Avenue La Calle SAN ANTONIO AVENUE Matadero Ave Colorado Pl Los Robles Avenue Timlott Ct Vista Villa PaloAltoAvenu e Lane La Donna Avenue Cass Way Kenneth Drive Fabian Way Page Mill Road Middlefield RoadChristine Drive Louis Road Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Chimalus Drive Hanover Street Community Lane Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Avenue Maplewood Pl Mackay Drive Santa Teresa Lane Byron Street Varian Way Quail DrQuail Dr Paloma Dr Paloma Dr Trinity Ln Heron Wy Feather Ln Stanislaus LnTuolu mne Ln Plover Ln Sandpiper Ln Curlew Ln Mallard LnEgret Ln Klamath Ln Deodar StAlder LnSpruce Ln Rickey's Ln Juniper Way Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Juniper Lane Emerson Street Boronda Lane Tahoe Lane Lake Avenue Donner Lane Almanor Lane Fallen Leaf Street Berryes sa Street Cashel StNoble St Hettinger Ln Pratt Ln Emma Court Galvez Mall Federation Way Abrams Court Allardice Way Alta Road Alvarado CtAlvarado Row Angell Court Arguello Way Arguello Way Avery Mall Ayrshire Farm Lane Barnes CourtBonair Siding Bowdoin Street Cabrillo Avenue Cabrillo Avenue Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Capistrano Way Casanueva Place Cathcart Way Cedro Way Cedro Way Churchill Mall Comstock Circle Aboretum Road Aboretum Road Blackwelder Court Campus Drive Cathcart Way Constanzo Street Cooksey Lane Coronado Avenue Cottrell Way Cottrell Way Cowell Ln Crothers Way Dolores Street Dolores Street Dudley Lane Duena Street Electioneer Road Escondido Mall Escondido Mall Escondido Road Escondido Road Escondido Road Esplanada Way Estudillo Road Fremont Road Frenchmans Road Frenchmans Road Galvez Mall Alvarado Row Galvez Street Galvez Street Galvez Street Gerona Road Gerona Road El Escarpado Gerona Road Hoskins Court Hulme Court JenkinsCourt Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Knight Way Lagunita Drive Lane L L ane W Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Street Lathrop Drive Lathrop Drive Lathrop Place Lathrop Drive Links RoadLinks Road Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita DriveLomitaCourt Lom ita Mall Los Arboles Avenue Masters Mall Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue McFarland Court Mears CourtMears Court Memorial Way Mirada Avenue Mirada Avenue Museum Way N Service Road N Tolman Ln Nelson Mall Nelson Road North-South Axis Oberlin St Comstock Circle Escondido Mall Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Palm Drive Palm Drive Pampas Lane Panama Mall Panama Mall Panama Street Panama Street Pearce Mitchell Pl Peter Coutts Circle Peter Coutts Road Peter Coutts Road Pine Hill Court Pine Hill Road Quarry Extension Quarry Road Quillen Ct Raimundo Way Rai m undo Wa y Raimundo Way Roble Drive Rosse Lane Roth Way Roth Way Roth Way Running Farm Lane Ryan Court S Service Road S Tolman Ln Salvatierra Street Salvatierra St Salvatierra W alk Samuel Morris Wy San Francisco Terrace San Francisco CourtSan Juan St San Juan St San Rafael Pl Santa Fe Avenue Santa Maria Avenue Santa Teresa Street Santa Teresa Street Santa Ynez Street Searsville Road Sequoia Wy Serra Mall Serra Street Serra Street Serra Street Sonoma Terrace Stanford Avenue Stanford Avenue Stock Farm R oad Thoburn Court Tolman DriveValdez Place Valparaiso Street Vernier Place Via Ortega Via Palou Via Pueblo Mall Welch Road Wellesley St Wilbur Way Wing Place Yale St Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Hawthorne Avenue Lytton Avenue Alpine Acce ss Road Nathan Abbott Way Sam McDonald Road Sam McDonald Mall Vista Lane Bowdoin Lane Arguello Way Governors Avenue Governors Avenue Governors Avenue S Governors Lane Pasteur Drive Lagunita Drive Alma Village Lane Alma Village Circle R e s e r v oir R o a d Reservoir Road Reservoir Road Ranch Road Ryan Lane O'Connor Lane Gene CtBrassinga Ct Cole Ct Birch Street Arboretum Road Welch RoadPasteur Drive Pasteur Drive This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Commercial & RT Zoning Districts - Office is a Permitted Use w/ Possible GF & Size Limitations ROLM & RP Zoning Districts - Office and R & D is a Permitted Use MOR Zoning District - Medical Office is a Permitted Use PF Zoning District - Office is a Conditional Use GM Zoning District - R & D is a Permitted Use & Office is a Conditional Use Stanford Research Park Annual Office and R&D Cap Area Boundaries City Jurisdictional Limits abc Note: Other uses where Office may be an "accessory use" maybe conditionally permitted in Residential Zoning Districts 0'2200' Of f i c e a n d R & D An n u a l C a p B o u n d a r i e s Ar e a M a p CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2015-10-01 11:54:38 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\meta\view.mdb) Exhibit A Print Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.85 INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCES Sections: Annual Office Limit** 18.85.210 Definitions 18.85.220 Office Annual Limit 18.85.230 Exemptions 18.85.240 Economic Hardship Waiver or Adjustment 18.85.250 Procedures for Reviewing Qualifying Applications 18.85.260 Selection Criteria 18.85.270 Implementation **Editor’s Note: Sections 18.85.210 through 18.85.270 were added by Ord. 5357, which shall expire within two years of its effective date, 11-26-15 or upon City Council adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update, whichever occurs first. ANNUAL OFFICE LIMIT 18.85.210 Definitions. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the definitions below: (a) Office Annual Limit Area shall include the area shown in Exhibit A (attached to Ord. 5357), comprising the commercial districts of Downtown, the California Avenue Area, and the El Camino Real corridor. (b) Office Annual Limit Land Uses shall include any of the following uses in the Office Annual Limit Area: (1) Research and Development as defined in Section 18.04.030(123); (2) Administrative Office Services as defined in Section 18.04.030(6); (3) General Business Office as defined in Section 18.04.030(61); Page 1 of 5Chapter 18.85 INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCES xx 1/16/2018http://library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx (4) Medical Office greater than 5,000 net new square feet as defined in Section 18.04.030 (95); and (5) Professional Office as defined in Section 18.04.030(116). (c) Qualifying Application shall mean an application for a permit or other planning entitlement for an Office Annual Limit Land Use which (1) has been determined to be complete, (2) has completed the necessary analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act and (3) has been reviewed by all required commissions and/or Planning Director, as applicable. (Ord. 5357 § 1 (part), 2015) 18.85.220 Office Annual Limit. During the pendency of this Ordinance no more than 50,000 net new square feet of Office Annual Limit Land Uses per fiscal year shall be approved by the City in the Office Annual Limit Area. (a) For purposes of this Ordinance, the fiscal year shall be defined as July 1 to June 30. (b) The 50,000 square foot limit imposed by this section shall not apply to exempt projects as defined in Section 18.85.230 and such projects shall not be counted towards this limit. (c) This restriction shall be in addition to any other applicable growth restriction including but not limited to Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8 and Section 18.18.040 of the Zoning Code. In the event multiple policies apply to a project, the policy most restrictive of growth shall apply. (Ord. 5357 § 1 (part), 2015) 18.85.230 Exemptions. The following shall be exempt from this Ordinance: (a) Small Projects. Projects containing less than 2,000 net new square feet or less of Office Annual Limit Land Uses and accessory office space that is incidental to and customarily associated with a principal use or facility are exempt from the Office Annual Limit. (b) Small Medical Office Projects. Projects containing 5,000 net new square feet or less of Medical Office are exempt from the Development Cap. (c) Self-Mitigating Projects. Projects that would both: (1) provide rental housing for more workers than would be employed in the project; and (2) provide substantial transportation demand management strategies (individually or in cooperation with other projects or programs) to improve the current parking and traffic conditions. (d) Pipeline Projects. Page 2 of 5Chapter 18.85 INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCES xx 1/16/2018http://library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx Projects which have been approved, or which are considered "pipeline projects" as follows: (1) Projects which obtained a planning entitlement for an Office Annual Limit Land Use prior to the effective date of this ordinance. (2) Projects which are the subject of a planning entitlement application that was submitted to the City in 2013 or 2014 and deemed complete by the City on or before March 31, 2015. (e) City Office Space. New office space used by the City of Palo Alto. (Ord. 5357 § 1 (part), 2015) 18.85.240 Economic Hardship Waiver or Adjustment. An applicant may request that the requirements of this Ordinance be adjusted or waived based on a showing that applying the requirements of this Ordinance would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. The applicant shall bear the burden of presenting evidence to support a waiver or modification request under this Section and shall set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for the claim, including all supporting technical documentation. Any such request under this section shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Director together with an economic analysis or other supporting documentation and shall be acted upon by the City Council. (Ord. 5357 § 1 (part), 2015) 18.85.250 Procedures for Reviewing Qualifying Applications. The following additional processing and approval requirements shall apply to Office Annual Limit Land Uses: (a) No Qualifying Application for an Office Annual Limit Land Use shall be acted upon by the Director or by the City Council between July 1 and March 31 of the following year. (b) If the combined square footage proposed by all Qualifying Applications that are pending on March 31 would not exceed the annual limit, the Qualifying Applications shall be acted upon using the Zoning Code's usual process immediately following March 31. (c) If the combined square footage proposed by all Qualifying Applications would exceed the annual limit, the Director shall rank all Qualifying Applications based on scoring criteria set forth in Section 18.85.260 and make a recommendation to the Council. The Council may accept the Director's recommendation or reevaluate the ranking based on the scoring criteria. Based on their review, the Council shall approve in ranked order one or more Qualifying Applications to achieve a maximum of 50,000 net new square feet. The Council may approve applications as proposed and recommended, and may require modifications of any project to reduce the proposed square footage in order to stay within the 50,000 square feet Office Annual Limit. The Page 3 of 5Chapter 18.85 INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCES xx 1/16/2018http://library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx Council's action on all Qualifying Applications shall be made before the end of the fiscal year on June 30. (d) Any application which is subject to City Council evaluation and action pursuant to Section (c) above and which was not approved by the City Council shall be denied unless, at the request of the applicant, it is rolled over to the next fiscal year for processing in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance. Further, in lieu of modifications to the project's Office Annual Limit Land Use, the applicant can elect to roll over the application to the next fiscal year. The City and applicant may agree to extend any applicable processing time periods to effectuate this provision. (Ord. 5357 § 1 (part), 2015) 18.85.260 Selection Criteria. The City Council shall evaluate applications subject to the annual limit using the following criteria based upon weighting set forth in administrative rules or procedures which shall provide that projects meeting criterion (i) shall be selected first and weighted against each other: Impacts (a) The density of the development in the context of underlying zoning and the site surroundings; and (b) The ability to avoid or address potential impacts on traffic and parking; and Design (c) The quality of design, including the attention to human scale where the building(s) meet the street, the compatibility with surroundings, and the overall architectural quality; and Environmental Quality (d) Environmental quality; and Public Benefit (e) The value to the community of public benefits offered; and Uses (f) Mixed use projects including substantial housing; and (g) Mixed use projects including retail; and (h) Mixed use projects that provide space for cultural amenities such as but not limited to art galleries and studios; and Pipeline Projects (i) Any entitlement application involving an Office Annual Limit Land Use deemed complete by the City between March 31, 2015 and June 15, 2015. (Ord. 5357 § 1 (part), 2015) Page 4 of 5Chapter 18.85 INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCES xx 1/16/2018http://library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 18.85.270 Implementation. The Director has the authority to adopt rules or procedures to implement the efficient and equitable implementation of this Ordinance. (Ord. 5357 § 1 (part), 2015) Page 5 of 5Chapter 18.85 INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCES xx 1/16/2018http://library.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx CJL Stanford Shopping Center Downtown/Unniversity Area UniversityStation PAMF Town & Country California AvenueArea Fry's Site Stanford Research Park El Camino RealCorridor El Camino RealCorridor El Camino RealCorridor Alma Plaza Stanford MedicalCenter CharlestonCenter R-1 San AntonioArea San AntonioArea Midtown West BayshoreArea EdgewoodPlaza East BayshoreArea MSC Embarcadero EastArea SOFA I SOFA II R-1 R-1 (7000) East MeadowCircle s J u n i p e r o S e r r a B o u l e v a r d P a g e M i l l R o ad R o a d E l C a m i n o R e a l S a n A n t o n i o A v e n u e C h a r l e s t o n R oa d O re g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R o a d U niversity Avenue y 1 0 1 A l m a S t r e e t El Camino Real n e R o a d F o o t h i l l E x p r e s Hi l l vi e w E a st B a y s h or e W e st B a y s h o r e Fabian S a n d Hill R o a d E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Wallis Ct Donald Drive Encina Grande Drive Cereza Drive Los Robles Avenue Villa Vera Verdosa DriveCampana DriveSolana Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way Driscoll Ct ngArthur' Maybell Way Maybell Avenue Frandon Ct Florales Drive Georgia AvenueAmaranta Avenue Amaranta Ct Ki sCourt Terman Drive Baker Avenue Vista Avenue Wisteria Ln Pena Ct Coulombe Drive Cherry Oaks Pl Pomona Avenue Arastradero Road Abel Avenue Clemo Avenue Villa Real El Camino Way Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenue Maclane Emerson Street Ventura Ct Park Boulevard Magnolia Dr South El Camino Real Cypress Lane GlenbrookD Fairmede Avenue Arastradero Road Irven Court Los Palos CirLosPalosPl Maybell Avenue Alta Mesa Ave Kelly Way Lo s Palos Avenue Suzanne Drive Suzanne Drive rive El Camino Real Suzanne CtLorabelle Ct McKellar Lane El Camino Way James Road Maclane Second Street Wilkie Way Camino Ct West Meadow Drive Thain Way Barclay CtVictoria Place Interdale Way West Charleston Road Tennessee LaneWilkie Way Carolina LaneTennessee Lane Park Boulevard Wilkie Ct Davenport Way Alma Street Roosev Monroe Drive Wilkie Way Whitclem Pl Whitclem DriveDuluth Circle Edlee Avenue Dinah's Court Cesano Court Monroe Drive Miller Avenue Whitclem Wy Whitclem Ct Ferne Avenue Ben Lomond Drive Fairfield Court Ferne Avenue Ponce Drive Hemlock Court Ferne Court Alma Street Monroe Drive San Antonio Avenue NitaAvenue Ruthelma Avenue Darlington Ct Charleston Road LundyLane Newberry Ct Park Boulevard George Hood Ln Alma Street eltCircle LinderoDrive Wright Place StarrKingCircle Shasta Drive Mackay Drive Diablo Court Scripps Avenue Scripps Court Nelson Drive Tioga Court Creekside Drive Greenmeadow Way Ben Lomond Drive Parkside Drive Dixon Place Ely Place Dake Avenue Ferne Avenue San Antonio Court (Private) ChristopherCourt CalcaterraPlace Ely Place Ely Place Adobe Place Nelson Court ByronStreet Keats Court Middlefield Road Duncan Place Carlson Court Duncan Place Mumford Place Charleston Road San Antonio Avenue East Meadow Drive Emerson Street Court BryantStreet RooseveltCircle RamonaStreet CarlsonCircle RedwoodCircle South Leghorn Street Montrose Avenue Maplewood Charleston Ct Charleston Road Seminole Way Sutherland Drive Nelson Drive El C apitan Place Fabian Street Loma Verde Avenue Bryson Avenue Midtown Court Cowper Street Gary Court Waverley StreetSouth CourtBryant StreetRamona Street Alma Street Coastland Drive Colorado Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Court Moreno Avenue Coastland Drive El Carmelo Avenue RosewoodD Campesino Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Ramona Street Bryant Street Towle Way Towle Place Wellsbury Ct AvalonCourt FlowersLane Mackall Way Loma Verde Avenue KiplingStreet Cowper Street South Court Waverley StreetEl Verano Avenue Wellsbury Way La Middlefield Road St Claire Drive Alger Drive Ashton Avenue St Michael DriveSt Michael Drive Maureen Avenue Cowper Court Rambow Drive East Meadow Drive Ashton Court Murdoch DriveCowperStreet Murdoch Ct St Michael Court MayCourt Mayview Avenue Middlefield Road Ensign Way Bibbits Drive Gailen CtGailen Avenue Grove Avenue San Antonio Avenue Commercial Street Industrial Avenue Bibbits Drive Charleston Road Fabian Way T East Meadow Drive Grove Avenue Christine Drive Corina Way Ross Road Corina Way Louis Road Nathan Way Transport Street Ortega Court East Meadow Drive yneCourt alisman Loma Verde Avenue Allen Court Ross Court Loma Verde Pl Ames Avenue Richardson Court Holly Oak Drive Ames Avenue CorkOakWay Middlefield Road A mes Ct Ames Avenue Ross Road Rorke Way RorkeWay Stone LaneToyon Place Torreya Court Lupine Avenue Thornwood Drive DriftwoodDrive Talisman Drive Arbutus AvenueRoss Road Louis Road Aspen WayEvergreen Drive East Meadow Drive Corporation WayElwell Court Janice Way East Meadow Circle East Meadow Circle GreerRoad Bayshore Freeway rive Ellsworth PlaceSan Carlos Court Wintergreen Way SutterAvenue Sutter Avenue Clara Drive Price CourtStern Avenue Colorado Avenue Randers Ct Ross Road Sycamore Drive Sevyson Ct Stelling Drive Ross Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling DriveStelling Ct ManchesterCourt Kenneth Drive ThomasDriveGreer Road Stockton Place Vernon Terrace Louis Road Janice Way Thomas DriveKenneth Drive Loma Verde Avenue CliftonCourtElbridgeWay Clara Drive BautistaCourt Stockton Place Morris Drive Maddux Drive Piers Ct Louis Road Moraga Ct Old Page Mill Road D CoyoteHillRoad Hillview Avenue Porter Drive Hillview Avenue Hanover Street Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Stanford Avenue Amherst Street Columbia StreetBowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Page Mill Road Hansen Way Hanover Street Arastradero Road Miranda Avenue e Hill Avenue anuela Avenue Miranda Avenue Laguna Ct Barron Avenue Josina Avenue Kendall Avenue Tippawingo St Julie Ct Matadero Avenue Ilima Way Ilima Court Laguna Oaks Pl Carlitos Ct La CalleLaguna Avenue ElCerrit Paradise Way Roble Ridge (Private) LaMataWay Chimalus Drive Matadero Avenue oRoad Paul Avenue Kendall Avenue Whitsell Avenue Barron Avenue Los Robles Avenue Laguna Way ShaunaLane La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue El Centro Street TimlottLa Jennifer Way Magnolia Dr North La Donna Avenue LosRoblesAvenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle Crosby Pl Georgia Avenue Hubbartt Drive Willmar Drive Donald Drive Arastradero Road Foothill Expres La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue Magnolia Drive Military Way Arbol Drive Orme Street Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way El Camino Real Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California Avenue Wellesley Street Princeton StreetOberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College AvenueWilliams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford AvenueEl Camino Real Churchill Avenue Park Boulevard Park Avenue Escobita Avenue Churchill Avenue Sequoia Avenue Mariposa Avenue Castilleja Avenue Miramonte Avenue Madrono Avenue Portola Avenue Manzanita Avenue Coleridge Avenue Leland Avenue Stanford AvenueBirch Street Ash Street Lowell Avenue Alma Street Tennyson Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan AvenueJacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard College Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield Lane Birch Street California Avenue Park Boulevard Nogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Avenue Santa Rita Avenue WaverleyStree Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Colorado AvenueStreet Emerson Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado AvenueAlma Street Alma Street HighStreet t Emerson Waverley Oaks Washington Avenue Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson StreetNevada Avenue North California Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Ramona Street High Street North California Avenue Oregon Expressway Marion Avenue Ramona Street Colorado Avenue Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Cowper Street Anton CourtNevada Avenue Tasso Street Tasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Pl Webster Street Middlefield Road Ross Road Warren Way El Cajon Way Embarcadero RoadPrimrose Way Iris Way Tulip Lane Tulip Lane Garland Drive Louis Road Greer Road MortonStreet Greer Road Hamilton Avenue Hilbar LaneAlannah Ct Edge Rhodes Drive Marshall Drive FieldinMoreno AvenueMarshallDrive Dennis Drive Agnes Way Oregon AvenueBlair Court Santa Ana Street Elsinore DriveElsinore CourtEl Cajon Way Greer RoadNorth California Avenue gDrive Colorado Avenue Sycamore Drive Amarillo Avenue VanAukenCircle Bruce Drive Colonial Lane Moreno Avenue Celia Drive Burnham Way Greer Road Indian Drive Elmdale Pl C Tanland Drive Moreno Avenue Amarillo Avenue West Bayshore Road Sandra Place Clara DriveColorado Avenue Greer Road Colorado AvenueSimkins Court Otterson CtHiggins PlaceLawrence Lane Maddux Drive Genevieve Ct MetroCircle MoffettCircle Greer Road East Bayshore Road ardinalWay Santa Catalina Street ArrowheadWayAztec Way Chabot Terrace Oregon Avenue Carmel Drive SierraCourt StFrancisDrive West Bayshore Road Tanland Drive East Bayshore Road woodDrive Edgewood Drive WildwoodLane Ivy Lane East Bayshore Road St Francis Drive Wildwood Lane Watson Court Laura Lane Sandalwood Ct O'Brine Lane (Private) Embarcadero Road FaberPlace Embarcadero Road Geng Road Embarcadero Way E Sand Hill Road Quarry Road Welch Road Arboretum Road Quarry Road Sand Hill Road Homer Avenue Lane 8 West Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Embarcadero Road Encina Avenue El Camino Real Urban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Channing Avenue Alma Street Alma Street PaloAltoA El Camino Real venue Mitchell Lane Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21High Street Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Ruthven Avenue Hawthorne Avenue Lane 33 PaloAltoAvenue Everett Avenue Poe Street Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Everett Court Lytton Avenue Byron Street Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Churchill Avenue Lowell Avenue Seale AvenueTennyson Avenue Melville Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street North California Avenue Coleridge Avenue Waverley Street Bryant Street Emerson Street Kellogg Avenue Kingsley Avenue Portal Place Ross Road Oregon Avenue Garland Drive Lane A West Lane B West Lane B East Lane D West Lane 59 East Whitman Court Kellogg AvenueEmbarcadero Road Kingsley Avenue Lincoln AvenueAddison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue Lane D East Lane 39 Lane 56 Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant StreetRamona Street Addison AvenueScott Street Byron Street Palo Hale Street Seneca Street Lytton Avenue Guinda Street PaloAltoAvenue Fulton StreetMiddlefield Road Forest Avenue Webster Street Kellogg Avenue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Cowper Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Boyce Avenue Forest AvenueHamilton Avenue Homer AvenueGuinda Street Middlefield Road Channing Avenue AltoAvenue Chaucer Street Chaucer Street University Avenue Channing Avenue Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Regent Pl Guinda StreetLincoln Avenue Fulton Street Melville Avenue Byron Street Kingsley Avenue Melville Avenue Hamilton AvenueHamilton Court Forest AvenueForest Ct Marlowe St Maple Stree Palm Street Somerset Pl Pitman Avenue Fife Avenue Forest Avenue Dana Avenue Lincoln Avenue University Avenue Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Fulton StreetCowper Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Northampton Drive West Greenwich Pl Middlefield Road Newell RoadGuinda Street East Greenwich Pl Southampton Drive Webster Street Kirby Pl Kent Place Tevis Pl Martin Avenue Center Drive Harriet Street Wils o n S t r e e t Cedar Street Harker Avenue Greenwood Avenue Hutchinson Avenue Channing Avenue Hopkins Avenue Embarcadero Road Ashby Drive Dana Avenue Hamilton Avenue Pitman Avenue Southwood Drive West CrescentDrive C University Avenue Center Drive East Crescen Arcadia Place Louisa Court Newell Pl Sharon Ct Erstwild Court Walter Hays Drive Walnut Drive Newell Road Parkinson AvenuePine Street Mark Twain Street Louis RoadBarbara Drive Primrose Way Iris Way Embarcadero Road Walter Hays Drive Lois Lane Jordan Pl Lois Lane Heather Lane Bret Harte Street Stanley Way De Soto DriveDe Soto Drive Alester Avenue Walter Hays Drive Channing Avenue Iris Way tDrive Dana Avenue Hamilton AvenueNewell RoadKings Lane Edgewood Drive Island Drive Jefferson Drive JacksonDrive Patricia LaneMadison Way EdgewoodDrive Ramona Street Addison AvenueChanning Avenue Waverley Street Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Middlefield Road Byron StreetWebster Street Marion AvenueWelch Road Sedro Lane Peral Lane McGregor Way Monroe Drive Silva Avenue Silva Court Miller Court Briarwood Way Driscoll Place Paulsen Ln Community Lane Lane 15 E Court Madeline Ct David Ct Green Ct Oregon Expressway Oregon Expressway Sheridan Avenue Page Mill Road Page Mill Road Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Foothill Expressway Cerrito Way Emerson Street Miranda Avenue Lane 20 WLane 20 E Oregon ExpresswayUniversity Avenue Jacob's Ct CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Clark Way Durand Way Sand Hill Road Swain Way Clark Way Mosher Way Charles Marx Way Orchard Lane Vineyard Lane Oak Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Sand Hill Road Hillv Lane 66 Bryant Street Ramona Street Blake Wilbur Drive West Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Fabian Way Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Palo Road Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way Shopping Center Way London Plane Way Plum Lane Sweet Olive Way Pear Lane Lane 66 La Selva Drive Grove Ct Stanford Avenue Lane 12 WLane 5 E Lasuen Street Serra Mall Escondido Road Olmsted Road Phillips Road Pistache Place Santa Ynez Street Lane B Lane C El Dorado Avenue Oak Creek Drive Clara Drive Bellview Dr Everett Avenue Homer Avenue La Calle SAN ANTONIO AVENUE Matadero Ave Colorado Pl Los Robles Avenue Timlott Ct Vista Villa PaloAltoAvenue Lane La Donna Avenue Cass Way Kenneth Drive Fabian Way Page Mill Road Middlefield RoadChristine Drive Louis Road Charleston Road Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway Chimalus Drive Hanover Street Community Lane Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Avenue Maplewood Pl Mackay Drive Santa Teresa Lane Byron Street Varian Way Quail DrQuail Dr Paloma Dr Paloma Dr Trinity Ln Heron Wy Feather Ln Stanislaus LnTuolu mne Ln Plover Ln Sandpiper Ln Curlew Ln Mallard LnEgret Ln Klamath Ln Deodar StAlder LnSpruce Ln Rickey's Ln Juniper Way Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Rickey's Wy Juniper Lane Emerson Street Boronda Lane Tahoe Lane Lake Avenue Donner Lane Almanor Lane Fallen Leaf Street Berryessa Street Cashel StNoble St Hettinger Ln Pratt Ln Emma Court Galvez Mall Federation Way Abrams Court Allardice Way Alta Road Alvarado CtAlvarado Row Angell Court Arguello Way Arguello Way Avery Mall Ayrshire Farm Lane Barnes CourtBonair Siding Bowdoin Street Cabrillo Avenue Cabrillo Avenue Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus Drive Campus DriveCampus Drive Campus Drive Capistrano Way Casanueva Place Cathcart Way Cedro Way Cedro Way Churchill Mall Comstock Circle Aboretum Road Aboretum Road Blackwelder Court Campus Drive Cathcart Way Constanzo Street Cooksey Lane Coronado Avenue Cottrell Way Cottrell Way Cowell Ln Crothers Way Dolores Street Dolores Street Dudley Lane Duena Street Electioneer Road Escondido Mall Escondido Mall Escondido Road Escondido Road Escondido Road Esplanada Way Estudillo Road Fremont Road Frenchmans Road Frenchmans Road Galvez Mall Alvarado Row Galvez Street Galvez Street Galvez Street Gerona Road Gerona Road El Escarpado Gerona Road Hoskins Court Hulme Court Jenkins Court Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Junipero Serra Boulevard Knight Way Lagunita Drive Lane L L ane W Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Mall Lasuen Street Lathrop Drive Lathrop Drive Lathrop Place Lathrop Drive Links RoadLinks Road Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita Drive Lomita DriveLomita Court Lomita Mall Los Arboles Avenue Masters Mall Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue Mayfield Avenue McFarland Court Mears CourtMears Court Memorial Way Mirada Avenue Mirada Avenue Museum Way N Service Road N Tolman Ln Nelson Mall Nelson Road North-South Axis Oberlin St Comstock Circle Escondido Mall Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Palm Drive Palm Drive Pampas Lane Panama Mall Panama Mall Panama Street Panama Street Pearce Mitchell Pl Peter Coutts Circle Peter Coutts Road Peter Coutts Road Pine Hill Court Pine Hill Road Quarry Extension Quarry Road Quillen Ct Raimundo Way Rai m undo Wa y Raimundo Way Roble Drive Rosse Lane Roth Way Roth Way Roth Way Running Farm Lane Ryan Court S Service Road S Tolman Ln Salvatierra Street Salvatierra St Salvatierra Walk Samuel Morris Wy San Francisco Terrace San Francisco CourtSan Juan St San Juan St San Rafael Pl Santa Fe Avenue Santa Maria Avenue Santa Teresa Street Santa Teresa Street Santa Ynez Street Searsville Road Sequoia Wy Serra Mall Serra Street Serra Street Serra Street Sonoma Terrace Stanford Avenue Stanford Avenue Stock Farm R oad Thoburn Court Tolman DriveValdez Place Valparaiso Street Vernier Place Via Ortega Via Palou Via Pueblo Mall Welch Road Wellesley St Wilbur Way Wing Place Yale St Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Alma Street Hawthorne Avenue Lytton Avenue Alpine Access Road Nathan Abbott Way Sam McDonald Road Sam McDonald Mall Vista Lane Bowdoin Lane Arguello Way Governors Avenue Governors Avenue Governors Avenue S Governors Lane Pasteur Drive Lagunita Drive Alma Village Lane Alma Village Circle R e s e r v oir R o a d Reservoir Road Reservoir Road Ranch Road Ryan Lane O'Connor Lane Gene CtBrassinga Ct Cole Ct Birch Street Arboretum Road Welch RoadPasteur Drive Pasteur Drive This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Commercial & RT Zoning Districts - Office is a Permitted Use w/ Possible GF & Size Limitations ROLM & RP Zoning Districts - Office and R & D is a Permitted Use MOR Zoning District - Medical Office is a Permitted Use PF Zoning District - Office is a Conditional Use GM Zoning District - R & D is a Permitted Use & Office is a Conditional Use Stanford Research Park Annual Office and R&D Cap Area Boundaries City Jurisdictional Limits abc Note: Other uses where Office may be an "accessory use" maybe conditionally permitted in Residential Zoning Districts 0' 2200' Of f i c e a n d R & D An n u a l C a p B o u n d a r i e s Ar e a M a p CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2015-10-01 11:54:38 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\meta\view.mdb) * Providing projects are ready for approval by March 30, 2018. Updated by Planning Division, January 24, 2018 Projects Subject to the Annual Office Limit for FY2016-FY2018 Approved Office Projects Fiscal Year Address Project Description Location Net New Office Area 2016 2747 PARK BL R&D: New three-story 33,323 sq. ft. research and development building, replacing the existing 4,800 sq. ft. commercial building. Zoning District: General Manufacturing (GM). [14PLN-00388] California Avenue 28,523 sq. ft. 2016 3225 EL CAMINO REAL Mixed-use: New 29,249 sq. ft. mixed-use project, replacing the existing 7,000 sq. ft. retail building, which includes eight residential units and 11,984 sq. ft. of commercial space (retail & office). Zoning District: CS Service Commercial. [15PLN-00003] El Camino Real Corridor 2,932 sq. ft. 2016 2585 EL CAMINO REAL Mixed-use: New three-story mixed use building including 19,954 sq. ft. of commercial space (retail & office) and 13 residential condominium units. Zone Districts: CN, CC(2). [15PLN-00170] El Camino Real Corridor 9,408 sq. ft. TOTAL 40,863 sq. ft. Fiscal Year Address Project Description Location Net New Office Area 2017 NONE Pending Office Projects Fiscal Year* Address Project Description Location Net New Office Area 2018 3045 PARK BL R&D: New two-story 29,120 sq. ft. R&D building replacing the existing 17,956 sq. ft. commercial/office building and construct a. Zone District: GM(AD). [17PLN-00073] California Avenue 11,164 sq. ft. 2018 3585 EL CAMINO REAL Mixed-use: New three-story mixed use building including 3,126 sq. ft. of office and two residential condominium units. Zone Districts: CN. [17PLN- 00305] El Camino Corridor 3,126 sq. ft. 2018 400 EMERSON Conversion of a financial services use to office use on the ground floor. [17000-02763, U&O] Downtown 2,500 sq. ft. Total 16,790 sq. ft. Fiscal Year CalAve* Downtown* ECR* SRP Other Areas Total (sq. ft.) 2001 5,828 9,601 2,080 155,930 22,600 196,039 2002 4,490 42,210 1,191 32,433 9,950 90,274 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 4,198 492 4,690 2005 26,320 10,201 0 0 ‐85,639 ‐49,118 2006 1,860 76,268 6,185 0 ‐164,152 ‐79,839 2007 60,703 410 0 5,700 ‐248,958 ‐182,145 2008 0 10,535 0 0 ‐15,442 ‐4,907 2009 1,754 0 0 0 ‐66,000 ‐64,246 2010 0 17,510 33,979 0 0 51,489 2011 0 28,148 0 35,000 5,690 68,838 2012 58,473 48,356 0 26,745 ‐162 133,412 2013 0 26,739 2,775 49,000 0 78,514 2014 45,406 45,608 0 11,571 ‐43,040 59,545 2015 58,840 0 0 0 14,608 73,448 2016 42,189 ‐9,203 12,340 47,141 0 92,467 2017 0 0 0 36,357 0 36,357 Total (sq. ft.) 305,863 306,383 58,550 404,075 ‐570,053 504,818 AOL Area* Citywide Citywide w/o SRP Total Development (sq. ft.): 670,796 504,818 100,743 Average Annual Development (sq. ft.): 39,459 29,695 5,926 Summary of Office/R&D Development FY2001‐FY2017 Notes: 1. Data shown is from VTA's Congestion Management Program's (CMP) and reflects office and R&D uses that is  derived from Planning Entitlements from FY 2001‐ FY 2017.  2. Data excludes Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) expansion and Mayfield Development Agreeement  Projects, which demolishes approximately 323k of non‐residential square feet and replaces 300k of demolished  square feet in Stanford Research Park (SRP). *The Annual Office Limit (AOL) affects primarily three commercial areas in the City: Donwtown, California Avenue  area, and the El Camino Corridor. Prepared by Planning Division August 2017 INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE February 17, 2016 Pursuant to the authority granted by Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.85.208, the following Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit Program Guideline (“Guideline”) is hereby adopted and determined to be desirable for the implementation and enforcement of PAMC Section 18.85.200 (Annual Office Limit) of PAMC Chapter 18.85 (Interim Zoning Ordinances). All defined terms used in this Guideline shall have the meaning set forth in PAMC Section 18.85.201. Overview: The purpose of this Guideline is to implement the annual limit on Office/R&D development adopted by Ordinance Number 5357 on October 26, 2015. The annual limit was adopted on an interim basis for two years (until November 26, 2017) or until the Comprehensive Plan Update is completed, whichever occurs first. No more than 50,000 gross square feet of new Office/R&D development can be approved within a given fiscal year in the subset of the City shown in Attachment A and adopted as Exhibit A of Ordinance 5357. This Guideline is intended to implement the interim annual limit in Fiscal Year 2015/16 and Fiscal Year 2016/17. Program Guideline: A. Applicability. This Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit Program Guideline is applicable to all discretionary development applications proposing an increase in gross square footage devoted to one or more of the following uses,1 when the site is located within the area shown on Exhibit A of Ordinance 5357: • Research & Development as defined in PAMC Section 18.04.030(123) • Administrative Office Services as defined in PAMC Section 18.04.030(6) • General Business Office as defined in PAMC Section 18.04.030(61) • Medical Office as defined in PAMC Section 18.04.030(95) • Professional Office as defined in PAMC Section 18.04.030(116). Building permit applications and associated use and occupancy certificates are not discretionary and applications proposing use or reuse of existing building space via non-discretionary applications are not subject to the Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit. B. Exemptions. Exempted applications, as defined below, shall be processed in accordance with applicable sections of the PAMC without regard to the 1 The text of the cited definitions is included in Attachment B. INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 2 procedures established by this Guideline. The decision to approve or disapprove such applications shall be appealable to the City Council in accordance with existing provisions of the PAMC. An applicant may request in writing a formal determination that a pending application is exempt pursuant to one of the exemptions outlined below at any time. The resulting written determination shall be considered a code interpretation that is appealable to the City Council consistent with Section 18.01.025 of the PAMC. 1. Accessory office space that is incidental to and customarily associated with a principal use or facility. Examples include a small office space used in conjunction with a retail establishment, a hotel, a school, or a religious institution. 2. City office space. 3. Any application proposing less than 2,000 new gross square feet of Research & Development, Administrative Office Services, General Business Office, and/or Professional Office, where such application does not also involve the Medical Office exemption in item (4) below. 4. Any application proposing a project containing less than 5,000 new gross square feet of Medical Office, where such application does not also involve the exemption in item (3) above. 5. “Pipeline Projects” as follows: a. Projects which obtained a planning entitlement prior to the effective date of Ordinance 5357 (November 25, 2015). b. Projects which are the subject of a planning entitlement application that was submitted to the City in 2013 or 2014 and deemed complete by the City on or before March 31, 2015. C. “Self-Mitigating Projects” which provide rental housing for more members of the workforce than would be employed in the project, and which provide substantial transportation demand management (TDM) strategies either individually or in combination with other projects or programs such that parking and traffic conditions in the site vicinity would be improved. D. Economic Hardship Waiver or Adjustment. An applicant may request that requirements of Ordinance 5357 be adjusted or waived based upon showing that applying the requirements of Ordinance 5357 would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 3 1. The applicant shall bear the burden of presenting evidence to support a hardship-related waiver or modification and shall submit an economic analysis along with an explanation of the factual and legal basis for the claim to the Director of Planning. 2. The Director of Planning shall review the request and forward it to the City Council with a recommendation within 60 days. The City Council shall consider the request at a noticed public meeting, along with the economic analysis and the Director’s recommendation, and provide a final decision to grant or deny the request. E. Processing and review of applications subject to the Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit. 1. Applications subject to the Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit shall be processed in accordance with the PAMC and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), except that neither the Director of Planning nor the City Council shall adopt the CEQA document or act upon any such applications between July 1 and March 31 of each year. 2. The Director of Planning shall review all such applications that are pending final action by the Director of Planning or City Council as of the close of business on March 31 of each year, and determine which applications are eligible for consideration. a. Pending applications only become eligible for consideration if they have been recommended for approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC – for Site and Design and rezoning applications only), and if review pursuant to CEQA has been completed. For purposes of this section, subdivision requests accompanying entitlement applications do not need to be submitted or processed. b. Applications that are not eligible for consideration at the close of business on March 31 will be reviewed for eligibility in the following fiscal year unless the 50,000 square foot annual limit has not been reached as described in paragraph (c) below. In this case, additional applications may become eligible and be considered between March 31 and June 30, as long as the 50,000 square foot annual limit is not reached. 3. If the sum total of new square footage proposed by all eligible applications on the close of business on March 31 is 50,000 square feet or less, all of the applications will be acted upon by the approving authority established in the PAMC. For example, the Director of Planning would act upon Architectural Review applications, and that action would be appealable to the City Council. INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 4 The City Council would act upon applications requiring Site and Design or rezoning. 4. If the sum total of new square footage proposed by all eligible applications on the close of business on March 31 is greater than 50,000 square feet, the Director of Planning shall prepare the applications for hearing by the City Council as follows: a. At an initial hearing, the Director shall provide the City Council with all pending applications, including required CEQA documents, recommended findings and conditions of approval. Each applicant will be invited to present their project at the initial hearing, and the City Council may provide comments and direction regarding the recommended findings and conditions. The initial review of the eligible projects by the City Council may be spread over more than one meeting if time does not allow review of all projects on one meeting agenda. i. If the City Council is unable to support approval of the required CEQA document or the required findings for any of the eligible projects, it may direct staff to prepare findings for denial or impose conditions that will permit it to make the necessary findings. ii. Projects that are denied based upon not meeting required findings for approval are no longer eligible projects and the applicant must submit a new planning entitlement for a substantially different project for proposed development at the same site. b. At a second public hearing, the Director shall provide the City Council with a recommended ranking of the eligible applications using the scoring criteria included below. The Director may convene a panel consisting of the Chair of the ARB and the Chair of the PTC to assist in the ranking. At the second public hearing, the City Council shall review the Director’s recommendation and select the projects that shall receive an office/R&D allocation. The projects selected shall receive planning entitlement approval at the same hearing, which shall occur before the end of the fiscal year on June 30. The City Council shall approve, deny, or approve as modified the project(s) receiving an office/R&D allocation. c. Any application that is not approved by the City Council solely because it exceeds the office/R&D allocation shall be denied unless the applicant requests that the project be rolled over for consideration in the next fiscal year. In addition, the applicant may request his/her application be rolled over to the next fiscal year if the City Council INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 5 proposes to modify the project by reducing its square footage and the applicant declines to do so. A project can be rolled over only one time. F. Expiration of Office/R&D Allocation. Once a project has been approved, all applicable entitlement timelines apply to the project, including the expiration of approvals. If an entitlement expires, the approved allocation also expires. The allocation cannot be carried over to another development proposal; it must be used for the approved project or it will be lost. G. Review Criteria and Scoring. 1. Eligible applications that were deemed complete by the City between March 31 and June 15, 2015 shall have priority over other projects and shall be evaluated against each other and granted an allocation before other eligible applications are considered 2. Review criteria are established in Ordinance 5347 as follows: Impacts a. The density of the development in the context of underlying zoning and the site surroundings; and b. The ability to avoid or address potential impacts on traffic and parking; Design c. The quality of design, including the attention to human scale where the building(s) meet the street, the compatibility with surroundings, and the overall architectural quality; and Environmental Quality d. Environmental quality Public Benefit e. The value to the community of public benefits offered; and Uses f. Mixed use projects including substantial housing; and g. Mixed use projects including retail; and h. Mixed use projects that provide space for cultural amenities such as but not limited to art galleries and studios 3. The Director’s recommendation shall be based on an evaluation of eligible applications weighting the review criteria as shown in the score card in Table 1, below. All projects will be ranked against each other according to the point totals they receive. 4. The City Council may accept the Director’s recommendation or modify it based on its independent review of the criteria, and shall determine which eligible applications will be approved, approved with modifications, or INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 6 denied, such that the total square footage approved does not exceed 50,000 new gross square feet of the uses listed in Section A, above. INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 7 Table 1. Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit Scoring (One Score Card Shall be Used to Evaluate Each Eligible Application) Project Address and APN: Net New Square Footage Requested: Brief Project Description: Scoring Criterion Total Possible Score Considerations for Each Criterion Project Score Explanation 1. Impacts 30 a. The density of the development in the context of underlying zoning and the site surroundings 10 Projects will be ranked against each other, with the most points awarded to the project that does not require variances or exceptions from applicable quantitative standards of the code and that is deemed to be most consistent in terms of its mass and scale with nearby buildings. 1 b. The ability to avoid or address potential impacts on traffic and parking 20 Projects will be ranked against each other, with the most points awarded to the project resulting in the least traffic and the least potential for unmet parking demand, regardless of whether these impacts are considered significant pursuant to CEQA. 2. Design 20 c. The quality of design, including the attention to human scale where the building(s) meet the street, the compatibility with surroundings, and the overall architectural quality 20 Projects will be ranked against each other, with the most points awarded to the project with the highest quality of design. Rankings will consider how the buildings address the street and their compatibility with surrounding buildings. INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 8 Scoring Criterion Total Possible Score Considerations for Each Criterion Project Score Explanation 3. Environmental Quality 20 a. Environmental quality 20 Projects will be ranked against each other, with the most points awarded to project that avoids significant environmental impacts under CEQA and that is designed to enhance the built and natural environment. Enhancements may include, but are not limited to, incorporation of energy conservation, storm water, and sustainability features above and beyond legal requirements, as well as incorporation of vegetation/landscaping and bird friendly design. 4. Public Benefit 20 b. The value to the community of public benefits offered 20 Eligible projects will be compared to each other in terms of their value to the community, with the top project receiving up to 20 points and other projects receiving lower rankings based on their relative benefits. For purposes of this section, the value of public benefits may be qualitative or quantitative.2 5. Uses 20 c. Mixed use projects including substantial housing 10 Projects will be ranked against each other with the most points awarded to the project with the greatest number of dwelling units.3 d. Mixed use projects including retail 5 Projects will be ranked against each other based on their mix of uses, including the quantity of ground floor retail.3 e. Mixed use projects that provide space for cultural amenities such as but not limited to art galleries and studios 5 Projects will be ranked against each other based on their mix of uses, including retail or personal services uses (galleries or studios) for use by artists, or space for other cultural uses. A project’s public art requirement does not count towards this.3 INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 9 Notes: 1. For purposes of this section, exceptions to the “Build to Line” standard and requests for parking reductions per PAMC Section 18.52.050 shall not be considered. Section 18.52.050 can be used to allow parking adjustments based on provision of on-site amenities, shared parking, senior housing, affordable housing, housing near transit, and TDM plans. 2. Benefits may be intrinsic to the project, such as affordable housing units, publicly accessible open spaces, publicly accessible off-street parking, community meeting space, or subsidized rent for community-serving non-profits. Benefits may also be extrinsic improvements or voluntary financial contributions to larger community initiatives. Some benefits may be quantifiable and some may not. 3. By rewarding provision of uses that may not be permitted in all zoning districts, this section effectively gives some priority to those projects that are proposed within districts that allow the desired uses (when those uses are incorporated into the proposed project). INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 10 Attachment A Map of Areas Subject to the Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit Attachment B Definitions of Relevant Office and R&D Uses from the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance Land Use Code Section Definition Research & Development 18.04.030(123) "Research and development" means a use engaged in the study, testing, engineering, product design, analysis and development of devices, products, processes, or services related to current or new technologies. Research and development may include limited manufacturing, fabricating, processing, assembling or storage of prototypes, devices, compounds, products or materials, or similar related activities, where such activities are incidental to research, development or evaluation. Examples of "research and development" uses include, but are not limited to, computer software and hardware firms, computer peripherals and related products, electronic research firms, biotechnical and biomedical firms, instrument analysis, genomics, robotics and pharmaceutical research laboratories, and related educational development. Research and development may include the storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of the exempt quantities listed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code, or etiological (biological) agents up to and including Risk Group 3 or Bio Safety Level 3 classifications as defined by the National Institute of Health (NIH) or the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Higher classification levels of etiological (biological) agents are not allowed without express permission of the City Manager, Fire Chief, and Police Chief. Related administrative uses such as finance, legal, human resources, management, marketing, sales, accounting, purchasing, or corporate offices; provisions of services to others on or off-site; and related educational uses may also be included provided they remain primarily supportive of the primary uses of "research and development" and are part of the same research and development firm. Administrative Office Services 18.040.030(6) "Administrative office services" means offices and service facilities performing headquarters, regional, or other level management and administrative services for firms and institutions. General Business Office 18.040.030(61) "General business office" means a use principally providing services to individuals, firms, or other entities, including but not limited to real estate, insurance, property management, title companies, investment, personnel, travel, and similar services. Medical Office 18.04.030(95) "Medical office" means a use providing consultation, diagnosis, therapeutic, preventive, or corrective personal treatment services by doctors, dentists, medical and dental laboratories, and similar practitioners of medical and healing arts for humans, licensed for such practice by the state of California. Incidental medical and/or dental research within the office is considered part of the office use, where it supports the on-site patient services. Medical office use does not include the storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of the permit quantities as defined in Title 15 of the Municipal Code. Medical gas storage or use shall be allowed up to 1,008 cubic feet per gas type and flammable liquids storage and use shall be INTERIM OFFICE/R&D ANNUAL LIMIT GUIDELINE Revised February17, 2016 Page 12 Land Use Code Section Definition allowed up to 20 gallons total (including waste). Professional Office 18.04.030(116) "Professional office" means a use providing professional or consulting services in the fields of law, architecture and architectural design, engineering, accounting, and similar professions, including associated product testing and prototype development, but excluding product manufacturing or assembly and excluding the storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of permit quantities prescribed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code. City of Palo Alto (ID # 8234) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/5/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Annual Office Limit Ord Extension & Discussion for Replacement Ordinance Title: PUBLIC HEARING. Adoption of an Ordinance for an Extension of Interim Ordinance 5357 Imposing an Annual Limit of 50,000 Net New Square Feet of Office/R&D Uses in Designated Areas of City to June 30, 2018 as Recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission on July 26, 2017 and Direction on a Replacement Ordinance. The Proposed Ordinance is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: 1. Find the proposed ordinance exempt from the provision of CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3); 2. Adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) to extend the existing interim Annual Office Limit Ordinance #5357 for an additional seven months to expire on June 30, 2018, allowing time for development and adoption of a replacement ordinance, as recommended by the Planning & Transportation Commission on July 26, 2017; and 3. Provide direction to staff regarding contents of a replacement ordinance for consideration at a future public hearing. At a minimum, City Council direction is needed to address the following issues and choices: A. Boundaries of the area that should be subject to the annual limit 1. Use the boundaries in the existing ordinance; 2. Make the ordinance apply citywide; or 3. Make the ordinance apply citywide, with the exception of the Stanford Research Park. City of Palo Alto Page 2 B. The quantitative annual limit 1. Continue to use 50,000 gross square feet (gsf) as the annual limit; or 2. Identify some other number of square feet as the annual limit. C. The fate of unused annual allocations 1. Do not roll-over unused allocations to future years; 2. Roll-over unused allocations for up to three years before they expire (or some other timeframe); 3. Roll-over unused allocations up to a numeric limit, such as 100,000 gsf per year; or 4. Allow allocations to roll over indefinitely. D. Uses that are exempt from the annual limit 1. Maintain the current list of exemptions for (a) office/R&D development less than 2,000 gsf; (b) medical office development less than 5,000 gsf; and (c) self-mitigating projects that propose sufficient housing to meet the housing demand of additional employment; or 2. Modify the current list of exemptions. E. The process for reviewing projects subject to the annual limit 1. Continue the current competitive process; 2. Use a first-come first-served process; or 3. Use some alternate or modified process. Executive Summary On September 21, 2015, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance establishing an annual limit on the amount of net new office/research and development (R&D) space that can be approved each fiscal year in specified areas of the City including Downtown, the California Avenue area, and the El Camino Real Corridor; this interim ordinance will expire on November 26, 2017. To allow sufficient time for staff to prepare the replacement ordinance and to assure no lapse in the regulations, an extension of the existing interim ordinance is proposed. In addition to the extension of the interim ordinance, staff also seeks direction from Council regarding the replacement ordinance for regulating office/R&D development. As indicated in the Recommendation above, items identified for Council’s comment and direction include the boundaries and quantitative size of the annual limit, as well as the fate of unused annual allocations, exempt uses, and the process for reviewing projects subject to the annual limit. More explanation is provided in the Discussion section below. Background The current City’s Comprehensive Plan contains an overall cap of 3.2 million square feet on the amount of non-residential development that can occur in Downtown and in “monitored areas” City of Palo Alto Page 3 of the City, but does not currently limit the pace of development.1 In the summer of 2014, conversations with the community, associated with early Comprehensive Plan update workshops, identified some frustration that the current Comprehensive Plan’s approach to growth management (i.e. an overall “cap” on non-residential development) has not been effective at moderating the pace of growth and development in the robust economic recovery following the recession. Based on these early communications, a growth management policy that moderated or metered the rate of development rather than the overall amount became the focus of discussions. This emphasis on the rate of development had its genesis in the impacts associated with increased employment in the City as experienced by Palo Alto residents. Impacts include traffic congestion/delay, parking demand, increased housing costs, and more. The objective of the annual limit is to moderate the pace of change by metering the rate of office/R&D development, thereby also reducing the rate of employment growth and related impacts. Over the course of six meetings from January through June of 2015, the City Council discussed the concept of limiting the pace of new office/R&D development, a discussion that resulted in the adoption of the Annual Office Limit (AOL) interim ordinance in September 2015. During the January 30, 2017 City Council hearing on the draft Land Use Element, Council directed staff to bring forward a replacement annual office limit ordinance separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update, affirming that the development limitations were to remain in effect on a continuing basis beyond the interim ordinance’s sunset date. Additional background information is available in earlier staff reports on this subject, including the Planning and Transportation Commission study session staff report dated March 29, 2017 (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56641) and a City Council report for the approval of the original interim ordinance, dated September 21, 2015 (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48971). Interim Ordinance (2015) In September 2015, Council adopted an ordinance to establish an annual limit on new office/R&D development in areas of the City experiencing the most rapid change. The ordinance applied to office development in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, established applicable land uses, designated areas affected, identified exemptions, and outlined other procedural items. The City Council also approved a process for proposals once the 50,000 sq. ft. limit is 1 The cap that applies to “monitored areas” of the City was established by Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8 and addresses all non-residential development, not just office/R&D. “Monitored areas” are illustrated in Comprehensive Plan Map L-6. The ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update is proposing to change this policy so it would place a cumulative cap on office/R&D uses citywide except at the Stanford University Medical Center (i.e. not just in “monitored areas”). The Comprehensive Plan Update does not contain a policy regarding an office/R&D annual limit, which the Council indicated it wished to adopt as a standalone ordinance. City of Palo Alto Page 4 reached. The ordinance was to be in effect for a limited duration to pilot the new, interim procedures and then determine future measures. As described later in this report, the 50,000 sq. ft. limit has not been exceeded during this pilot period. Below is a summary of the key elements of the ordinance. Please refer to Attachment B for additional details. Affected Area The interim ordinance applies to three primary commercial areas in Palo Alto: Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real. These areas are delineated on the map (Attachment B, Exhibit A) included with the ordinance. Applicable Land Uses The following land uses, which are defined in Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, are limited by the AOL Ordinance:  Research and Development  Administrative Office Services  General Business Office  Medical Office over 5,000 sq. ft.  Professional Office Exempt Projects There are three types of projects that qualify for an exemption from the limitations:  Small projects less than 2,000 sq. ft. and accessory office space that is incidental to principal use.  Small medical office less than or equal to 5,000 sq. ft.  Self-mitigating projects that provide rental housing to accommodate more workers than would be employed by the project and includes substantial transportation demand management strategies that improve current parking and traffic conditions. Process and Selection Criteria The interim ordinance requires the City to hold all approval-ready or “qualified” applications that are subject to the ordinance until March 31st each fiscal year. At that time, if the sum total of the applications does not exceed the 50,000 sq. ft. annual limit, the applications can be approved and the unused portion of the 50,000 sq. ft. limit expires at the end of the fiscal year. When the 50,000 sq. ft. limit is exceeded by the qualified projects pending on March 31st, the following criteria are to be analyzed and used by Council to evaluate and rank projects for approval or disapproval (projects that are identified for disapproval can be deferred to the next year at the request of the applicant): City of Palo Alto Page 5  Impacts: appropriate density of development; avoidance/mitigation of traffic and parking impacts.  Design: quality design and compatible with surrounding context.  Environmental Quality: degree of environmental impacts as determined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis.  Public Benefit: meaningful public benefits included.  Uses: inclusion of mixed-use with substantial housing, retail, and cultural amenities. As shown in Figure 1, there are three primary steps that apply to office development. The first step in determining if the AOL thresholds apply is to inventory all qualifying projects on March 30 that are ready for action. Then, the second step is to calculate whether the 50,000 sq. ft. threshold has been triggered. If it has, then the projects would be evaluated based on the criteria listed above (e.g. impacts, design, public benefit, etc.) and ranked for Council review and action. If the threshold is not triggered, then the qualifying projects would follow the standard steps for review and action. Action on both categories of projects must be completed prior to the end of the fiscal year, June 30. Figure 1: Primary Decision Points in AOL Review Process Administrative Guidelines The administrative guidelines (Attachment C) were reviewed and approved by Council on February 8, 2016 and outline the procedural steps in more detail to streamline implementation. Additionally, the scoring process and “scorecard” for evaluation of projects are explained in finer detail. When qualifying projects exceed the 50,000 sq. ft. limit, each project will be City of Palo Alto Page 6 assigned points (based on criteria above) and then ranked; the Planning Director will provide Council with a recommended ranking for consideration. The guidelines also clarify that all Council approved entitlements would follow the standard review timelines (i.e. entitlement expiration, extensions, etc.) and if the applicant allowed the entitlement to expire, the approved square footage allocation associated with the project could not be rolled-over to another project; the approved project must use it or lose it. AOL Activity FY16-FY17 The first round of analysis for qualifying AOL projects was last year in March 2016 and the 50,000 sq. ft. limit was not exceeded; there were three projects proposed totaling 40,863 sq. ft. In March 2017, the 50,000 sq. ft. threshold was again not exceeded since there were no qualifying office projects ready for approval. For March 2018, there is one project on file so far with 11,164 sq. ft. of office that may potentially be ready for approval; it is not likely that another large office project, if submitted soon, would be ready for approval by March 2018. Staff’s observation is that projects proposed in the ordinance-affected areas of the City are either limiting their office use to less than 2,000 sq. ft. (to be exempt) or choosing to pursue other commercial and housing uses. Subsequent to the implementation of the AOL ordinance, there has not been any significant office development proposed in the ordinance-affected areas. Although the time period has been relatively short, it appears that the interim ordinance has reduced the amount of applications for net new office projects. A list of the AOL applicable projects referred to above is provided in Attachment F. Planning and Transportation Commission Review of Extension On July 26, 2017 the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the proposed extension of the AOL ordinance and unanimously recommended approval. No changes were recommended for the extension ordinance. The PTC comments provided regarding the future replacement ordinance are discussed later in this report. The PTC meeting minutes are included as Attachment D, and the staff report is available online (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58763 ). Planning and Transportation Commission Comments for Replacement Ordinance On March 29, 2017, the PTC discussed and provided a range of comments for the preparation of the replacement ordinance. The highlights of the comments are below:  AOL Intent: Several PTC members voiced strong concerns that the AOL was not the appropriate approach to address the concerns focused on traffic congestion and single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips. One alternative approach that was suggested by one City of Palo Alto Page 7 commissioner included using both the AOL and traffic mitigation, and the AOL would sunset when effective mitigation measures were put in place (or the cap increased or restrictions lessened, etc.).  Competitive Process: The majority of the PTC expressed a preference for maintaining a competition; only two spoke against a competitive process and encouraged a first-come first-served approach. Additionally, it was suggested by one commissioner that for the formal evaluation process, the Architectural Review Board should be the judging panel and not a political body (i.e. City Council), so as to maintain a greater sense of impartiality.  FAR Exemptions: Two PTC members specifically mentioned that smaller office proposals should not be exempt from the regulations because cumulatively these smaller offices do add to the congestion impacts since these small businesses may be less likely to have a robust TDM program in place.  Boundary: Two PTC members specifically mentioned including Stanford Research Park (SRP) within the applicable boundary because the uses there generate the highest volume of SOV trips when compared to the other commercial areas in the City. It was also suggested that office development should be allowed or encouraged in areas that are most accessible by transit (i.e. Downtown and Cal Ave) and be more regulated in areas not well serviced by transit.  FAR Rollover: The majority of the PTC supported some type of rollover allowance but did not suggest specific criteria.  50,000 Square Foot Limit: It was suggested by one commissioner that the limit be reduced, but the majority of the PTC did not raise any concerns about the 50,000 sq. ft. threshold.  Self-Mitigating Projects: Several PTC members asked for information on examples of these types of projects. At the July 26, 2017 PTC meeting, two members of the public made comments directed towards the future replacement ordinance, not the interim ordinance extension. Both speakers stated that the 50,000 sq. ft. limit was too high; raised the concern about the jobs/housing imbalance; and thought the regulations should apply to the City as a whole, although one speaker specifically stated citywide minus the Stanford Research Park. The PTC minutes for March 29 are included in Attachment E; and the associated staff report is available online at (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp). City of Palo Alto Page 8 Discussion The discussion items below are separated into those applicable to the existing interim ordinance extension and those focused on the replacement ordinance. A. Interim Ordinance Extension With the direction from Council in January 2017 to proceed in preparing on-going office limit regulations and with the interim ordinance due to expire in November 2017, staff is proposing an extension to the existing interim ordinance to provide staff sufficient time to complete the necessary preparation work; no changes are proposed. The interim ordinance extension would expire on June 30, 2018, which coincides with the end of the fiscal year. It is staff’s intent to have the replacement ordinance in place by this time so there is no lapse in the requirements. B. Future Replacement Ordinance In order to prepare an AOL ordinance to replace the interim ordinance, staff seeks direction from Council on any additions or modifications to the existing interim regulations. The discussion below is provided to facilitate focused feedback. At the time of the adoption of the interim ordinance in 2015 and in the recent January 2017 Council discussion, it was clear that Council intended to establish code changes to continue the development restrictions of the interim ordinance. On January 30, 2017, individual councilmembers commented on the AOL during their discussion of related Comprehensive Plan policies and indicated their support for expanding the affected area of the City (to the whole city minus the Stanford Research Park) and potentially dispensing with the competitive process (and transitioning to a first-come first-served system). The issues and options below have been highlighted to help guide the discussion for direction on the replacement ordinance. These issues reflect similar topics that the PTC commented on that are noted above. 1. Boundary The affected geographic boundary under the current interim ordinance includes areas in the City that have experienced the most rapid growth. Although the boundary does not precisely follow established business districts, it generally follows the Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real commercial areas. The three suggested options include maintaining the current boundary or modifying it to apply the ordinance citywide, either including or excluding the Stanford Research Park (SRP). A map that indicates the areas within the entire City where office use is allowed is provided for reference as Attachment H.  Option 1: Maintain the existing boundary, which is limited to Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real corridor. City of Palo Alto Page 9  Option 2: Apply Regulations Citywide. This option would encompass the SRP as well as all other parts of the city. The AOL regulations, if extended citywide, would apply only to new square footage not covered under the Mayfield Development Agreement (DA), an exception that could add some complexity to the program. Applying the AOL citywide would recognize there is additional development potential for office/R&D throughout the areas shown in Attachment H.  Option 3: Apply Regulations Citywide Excluding the SRP. This approach would apply the regulations to office development throughout the City with an exception for SRP. A potential reason to exclude the SRP is that it is a discrete geographic area with a development agreement in effect governing development. Also, with a single property owner, the City has a greater opportunity to negotiate agreements regarding development and the impacts of development. 2. Square Footage Limit On March 23, 2015, Council directed staff to use a 50,000 sq. ft. threshold for the annual limit for office development, based upon review of the VTA’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) office/R&D development data spanning 2001 through 2015. From 2001 through 2017, the CMP data shows there were six years when office/R&D development in the commercial districts affected by the interim ordinance exceeded 50,000 sq. ft. (FY2006, FY2007, FY2010, FY2012, FY2014, and FY2015). Within the three ordinance-affected areas, the average annual development over the 17 years was approximately 39,459 sq. ft., with a range from 0-106,829 sq. ft. A table summarizing this development activity is provided as Attachment G.2  Option 1: Maintain the existing 50,000 sq. ft. annual limit.  Option 2: Identify a new annual limit. 3. Unused Square Footage Allocations A related issue to the annual limit number is consideration of allowing the roll-over of unused floor area. The majority of the PTC supported the concept of rolling over unused floor area, but did not have any suggestions on how this should be managed. An indefinite roll-over (i.e. allocations roll over without restriction until they are used) could be seen as inconsistent with 2 The CMP data includes all office and R&D development, including projects that are exempt from the AOL ordinance. This explains the square footage difference in the CMP data (Attachment G) and the approved AOL projects (Attachment F) for FY2016. City of Palo Alto Page 10 the purposes of the AOL because it would defeat the goal of pacing the development and allow spikes to occur. Below are some options for consideration.  Option 1: Continue with no-rollover allowance.  Option 2: Allow floor area that is not allocated to a development project to carry over to subsequent years, but make it expire after three years (or another timeframe).  Option 3: Allow the roll-over of floor area that is not approved with a development project to carry over without expiration, but include a cap (e.g. 100,000 sq. ft.).  Option 4: Allow the roll-over of floor area that is not approved with a development project to carry over without expiration and continually add on to the yearly limit. 4. Exemptions As mentioned earlier, small office projects up to 2,000 sq. ft. and medical office up to 5,000 sq. ft. are exempt from the AOL under the interim ordinance. Several PTC members stated that all new office should count towards the 50,000 sq. ft. because, cumulatively, many smaller offices could have the same or more impacts as larger offices. The PTC discussion suggested that since these businesses are small, they potentially are less likely to have the resources or impetus to actively manage a Transportation Demand Management program for their individual businesses.  Option 1: Continue to exempt small projects (office/R&D development less than 2,000 gsf and medical office development less than 5,000 gsf) and self-mitigating projects that propose sufficient housing to meet the housing demand of additional employment.  Option 2: Modify the current list of exemptions. 5. Review Process The current process under the interim ordinance requires a competitive approach when the 50,000 sq. ft. threshold is exceeded. There is a subjective evaluation that must occur for each of the projects to rank them and forward to Council for consideration. This process is untested because thus far the 50,000 sq. ft. threshold has not been exceeded. Staff anticipates that this process may be challenging to implement because of its subjective nature. This process is also time-intensive for the applicant and staff, and does not provide any assurances to the developer that their project will be approved now or in the future. The natural side effect of this ambiguity is the reluctance of developers to propose office projects in the City. City of Palo Alto Page 11 An alternative to the competitive process is to approve projects on a first-come first-served basis. This approach would approve projects in order, based on the date the application is ready for approval. Any number of projects could be approved, depending on their size, up to and until the 50,000 sq. ft. threshold is reached. This approach would obviate the need for approvable projects to wait until March 30. This approach likely can be done in various iterations. Options for consideration are:  Option 1: Retain the existing competitive process.  Option 2: First-Come First-Served All projects follow the standard review steps as applicable to the project type (i.e. Architectural Review, Site & Design), but instead of sending projects to Council for action when the 50,000 sq. ft. threshold is exceeded, as required now, the applications would complete the applicable review, on first-come first-served basis3. Projects that cannot be approved for that fiscal year would be in the queue for approval in the following year.  Option 3: Consider an alternative or modified process. Staff would encourage the use of a first-come first-served process because it will be more straightforward to implement for both staff and property owners, while still achieving the purpose of metering office growth in designated areas of the City. Administrative Guidelines The current administrative guidelines will need to be modified based on the revised AOL ordinance. After receiving direction from Council, staff will prepare the revised guidelines and present then in tandem with a draft ordinance. Public Outreach In order to inform the community about the efforts to prepare the replacement Annual Office Limit ordinance, staff informed various known developers, property owners, architects, and resident groups about this meeting. Staff would welcome City Council input on the desired level of public outreach for the adoption of the replacement ordinance. At a minimum, staff will use electronic notification for interested parties and will maintain a project information page on the City’s website to keep the public up-to-date on meeting dates and staff reports. Policy Implications 3 The “first-come first-served” determination uses to the date a project is deemed complete according to the Permit Streamlining Act and not the date an application is filed with the City. Using the deemed complete date deters applicants from submitting incomplete application packages to simply secure an earlier filing date. City of Palo Alto Page 12 The proposed ordinance would seek to moderate the pace of development without changing the zoning regulations that affect land uses and densities. The annual limit program would complement and not replace growth management stategies in the current Comprehensive Plan, which consists of a cumulative cap on non-residential development Downtown and in “monitored areas” Citywide. In this way, the proposal would implement Comprehensive Plan Policy B-1 to “use a variety of planning and regulatory tools, including growth limits, to ensure that business change is compatible with the needs of Palo Alto neighborhoods.” Timeline The AOL interim ordinance (#5357), adopted on September 21, 2015, will expire on November 26, 2017. The approval of the attached extension ordinance would make the annual office limit effective for seven additional months, expiring on June 30, 2018. For the replacement AOL ordinance, staff anticipates returning to the PTC and City Council for review and final action in Spring 2018. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is considered exempt under Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is a temporary measure designed to slow the rate of change in some commercial areas of the City. Attachments: Attachment A: Annual Office Limit Extension Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment B: Interim Ordinance #5357 Annual Office Limit (PDF) Attachment C: Interim Office/R&D Annual Limit Guideline (PDF) Attachment D: PTC Meeting Excerpt Minutes, July 26, 2017 (Ordinance Extension) (DOC) Attachment E: PTC Meeting Excerpt Minutes, March 29, 2017 (Comments on Permanent Ordinance) (PDF) Attachment F: Approved and Pending Office Projects Subject to the AOL Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment G: Office Development Summary FY 2001 to FY 2017 (PDF) Attachment H: Map Showing Where Office Use is Allowed in Palo Alto (PDF) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL EXCERPT TRANSCRIPT   Page 1 of 85  Special Meeting September 5, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:08 P.M. Present: DuBois arrived at 5:24 P.M.; Filseth, Fine, Holman; Kniss arrived at 5:15 P.M.; Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach 3. PUBLIC HEARING. Adoption of an Ordinance for an Extension of Interim Ordinance Number 5357 Imposing an Annual Limit of 50,000 net new Square Feet of Office/R&D Uses in Designated Areas of the City to June 30, 2018 as Recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission on July 26, 2017; and Direction Regarding a Replacement Ordinance. The Proposed Ordinance is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Mayor Scharff: Now, on to our first action item, which is the adoption of an ordinance for an extension of Interim Ordinance Number 5357 imposing annual limit of 50,000 net square feet of office/R&D use in designated areas. You want to take it away? Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Hillary Gitelman, the Planning Director. While Claire is getting the presentation teed up, let me introduce her. This is Claire Campbell on our Staff, who I am sure you know already. The purpose of this item this evening is two-fold. One, we want to get the Council's action on an extension ordinance to extend the annual office limit ordinance a little longer to give us time to prepare a replacement ordinance. Then, secondly, we want the Council's direction on that replacement ordinance. Claire is going to go into the details here about the ordinance as it currently exists and what our proposals are. Claire Campbell, Senior Planner: Thank you. For a little bit of background, the—in the summer of 2014, during the Comprehensive Plan Update workshops, a concern was identified regarding the overall use of the development cap for regulating growth in the City. From these early discussions, focus shifted to a growth management policy that metered the rate of development rather than focused on the overall amount. By TRANSCRIPT    Page 2 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  metering development, the associated impacts such as increased employment, traffic congestion, and parking, etc., could also be better controlled. As a result of multiple Council discussions, the Office Limit Ordinance was adopted in September of 2015. It applied to two fiscal years, 2016 and '17. It currently will expire about halfway through fiscal year '18. The ordinance established a competitive process for evaluating office development including R&D within defined areas where office use is allowed. It also identified the annual development limit as 50,000 square feet of net new area. Soon after the ordinance was adopted, we established some administrative guidelines to facilitate the implementation of the ordinance. This map identifies the affected areas of the existing ordinance. We have the Downtown area including SOFA I. We have the California Avenue area and the El Camino Real Corridor. The current exemptions include small office projects that are less than 2,000 square feet and accessory office space, small medical office less than or equal to 5,000 square feet, and self- mitigating projects that provide rental housing to accommodate more workers than would be employed by the project and also includes substantial TDM strategies to improve current parking and traffic conditions. Another item that's also exempt but not listed here are City office spaces. That's listed in the ordinance. For the current review process, projects are submitted throughout the year for review, but no approval action can take place until the following steps have been accomplished. Step 1 is to establish a project list. On March 31st of the year, Staff will determine which projects are eligible for action. Ready for action means that the project has completed the Staff-level review, the environmental analysis, and also completed all of the public hearings with the exception of the Council review. That's all been completed, and now it's ready for moving forward. Once we have the project list, then we determine what the square footage is for these projects. If the projects are less than or equal to 50,000 square feet, then those projects would follow the standard review process. If those projects exceed the 50,000-square-foot threshold, those projects are then evaluated and ranked based on the criteria that's been adopted in the ordinance. That would be forwarded to Council for review and for action. This table provides a list of all of the projects that we've looked at so far, that are subject to the office limit for fiscal year 2016 and '17. You'll see that we don't have too many. For 2016, we had three projects, one R&D and two mixed-use, with a total of 40,800 square feet. For 2017, we did not have any projects. As of this time, we haven't yet exceeded the 50,000- square-foot threshold or implemented the competitive review process. This table provides an overview of the development within the ordinance-affected areas for the past 17 years. This is data that the City has provided to the VTA for the congestion management program. The line items that are highlighted in red show the 6 years where the office development has gone over the 50,000 square feet. We do have a range from 0 development to a TRANSCRIPT    Page 3 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  high of about 107,000 square feet. We have an average annual development of approximately 40,000 square feet. For those that may have noticed, there is a figure here for the 2016 development that's different from the previous slide. It's 45,326, and the previous slide had 40,863. It's roughly a 4,500-square-foot difference. This difference represents the net area of two projects. One of them was an approved pipeline project, and the second one was permanently removed office square footage. That is trying to hopefully explain that difference in the numbers. Now, we're moving on to the discussion for the replacement ordinance. The Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a study session earlier this year, in March 2017, and provided these comments. There was majority support for maintaining the competitive process for evaluating projects. There was a strong interest in establishing a rollover provision. Generally, there was no concern about the 50,000-square-foot limit. For these other items, there was limited support or mixed support for some of these issues. It was suggested that traffic mitigation measure was a better approach than the office limit to address traffic and congestion concerns. There was discussion about not exempting small projects because they cumulatively add impacts. The boundary should be Citywide and include the Stanford Research Park. Examples of self-mitigating projects was requested for a better understanding of what these would look like. Just for information, Commissioner Summa is here tonight if you have any questions. She can help follow up with anything. To organize our discussion tonight, we've highlighted five items to focus on. We're looking for Council direction on the boundary, the square footage limit, the disposition of unused floor area allocation, project exemptions, and the review process. This map is provided to show you all of the areas within the City where office use is allowed. The red outlined areas, of course, are the areas that are affected by the existing ordinance. We have areas in the Baylands off Embarcadero. There's West Bayshore, East Meadow Circle, San Antonio, and then we have Midtown in the middle, and we have Stanford Research Park. The idea of this is to give you the big picture view of all areas in the City where office can occur. This slide shows all of the office and R&D development Citywide for the past 17 years. I'm just going to focus on these bottom figures to give a summary. The existing annual office limit area. Over these last 17 years, there's been about 700 [sic] square feet of new office developed with an average annual development of about 40,000 square feet. Citywide this includes the Research Park and all of the other areas shown in that previous map. We've got approximately 500,000 square feet of new office development with an annual average of about 30,000 square feet. The last figure, if you take out the Research Park, you've got total development of 100,000 square feet with an annual average of about 6,000 square feet. Now, we're moving on to our first item. The first one is should the boundary be modified. Option 1 is to maintain the existing boundary, which is limited TRANSCRIPT    Page 4 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  to the Downtown, California Avenue, and the El Camino Real Corridor. Option 2 is to apply regulations Citywide, and this option would encompass the Research Park as well as other parts of the City. Option 3 is to exclude the Research Park from the Citywide total. The next issue is the 50,000- square-foot threshold. Option 1 is to maintain the existing 50,000-square foot limit. The second is to identify a new limit. The next item is the disposition of unused floor area allocation. Option 1 is to continue with the current process where the floor area does not roll over. Option 2 is to allow the unallocated floor area to roll over with a 3-year expiration. Option 3 is to allow the unallocated floor area to roll over without expiration but have a cap. Option 4 is to allow the unallocated floor area to roll over without expiration and continually add on to the yearly limit. The fourth item is whether or not the current project exemptions should be changed. Option 1 would be continue with the current exemptions for the small projects and the self-mitigating projects. Option 2 would be to modify the current list of exemptions. Lastly is the review process. Option 1 is to retain the current competitive process. Option 2 would be to use a first-come-first-serve process. This is Staff's recommendation. Option 3 is to consider an alternative process. For our next steps, the interim ordinance extension, if adopted, would be effective 31 days after the second reading, and it will expire on June 30, 2018. For the replacement ordinance, Staff will return to the Planning Commission with a draft ordinance in early spring next year and then return to Council shortly thereafter for review and action. We're going to summarize the motion here. Staff recommends that the Council find the proposed ordinance exempt from the provisions of CEQA; you adopt an ordinance to extend the existing interim office limit ordinance; and, three, provide direction to Staff regarding the contents of the replacement ordinance for consideration at a future hearing. That concludes the formal presentation. Staff has also developed five slides of the five discussion items along with the related options for you to reference during your discussion tonight. I can have those up as you do your talk. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you very much. That was a great presentation. Now, we have a couple of public speakers. The first speaker is Hamilton Hitchings, to be followed by Judy Kleinberg. You'll each have 3 minutes. Public Hearing opened at 6:39 P.M. Hamilton Hitchings: Job growth in Santa Clara is limited by the availability and affordability of housing. Ironically, I have seen a rapid building spree of office in Downtown Palo Alto. In fact, about 20 new office buildings have been completed recently and almost no apartment buildings. This is because the profit per square foot from building office space is higher than the profit from building multiunit housing. When housing is rarely built, the TRANSCRIPT    Page 5 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  higher cost is passed on to those most needing the housing units. In addition, this rapid office development has significantly worsened traffic and parking Downtown. Has the office cap helped? According to the Staff Report, subsequent to the implementation of the ordinance there has not been any significant office development proposed in the ordinance-affected areas. Projects proposed in the ordinance areas of the City are either limiting their office use to less than 2,000 square feet to be exempt or choosing to pursue other commercial and housing uses. During the same period, I have seen a number of multiunit housing projects proposed in Palo Alto and am optimistic we are in the process of seeing more of those. When we look at the availability of housing types in Palo Alto, multiunit is disproportionately low relative to the anticipated need. I believe that the area of the ordinance should be expanded to all of Palo Alto except for Stanford Research Park. The existing exemptions for small office and self- mitigating projects should be retained. If a rollover is added, it should be combined with a reduction of the annual office limit. Otherwise, this effectively negates the purpose of the ordinance in the first place, which is to limit the rate of growth. The Architectural Review Board should be the ones who make the selection process. We should eventually implement a housing overlay for the affected areas. Thus, the ordinance effectively addresses many of Palo Alto's top concerns as measured by the Citizens Survey. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Judy Kleinberg to be followed by Tiffany Griego. Judy Kleinberg: Good evening, Council. I'm representing the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. The fundamental reason for creating the annual office limit, to rein in office development, no longer applies. Office development did not reach the 50,000-square-foot number in either of the cap's 2 years of existence. It's unclear it was effective. Whether the cap reduced the appetite for building in Palo Alto or developers are looking at more receptive communities in which to invest or the market is softening, which developers have all reported, it's clear that there is no building boom here requiring a permanent cap. In addition, limiting office development creates added incentive to raise office rental rates on the existing supply. Three City-sponsored surveys confirm that the impacts on traffic are not from office workers, but rather retail and service workers. A cap won't solve this problem. Local housing of different sizes and affordability will. The business community and residents agree on this: we want more housing. Proposals for housing or mixed-use with housing near transit should be green lighted and put on a fast track for approval. These are the points I want to leave you with as you go through what the Staff has asked you to consider tonight. If you insist on a cap, leave the cap boundaries where they are now. There's no reason to extend it Citywide. Continue the TRANSCRIPT    Page 6 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  exemption for small projects to encourage small property owners to upgrade their properties that serve small businesses. They shouldn't be put into the same basket with the big developments. Do rollover the unused development allocation. There should be no beauty contest or compatibility contest, however you want to put that. This is really not properly put into the hands of the Council or the ARB. It should just be first-come-first serve. Focus on mixed-use near transit. Multiunit housing with some office and retail incentivizes developers to invest in our community. The cap is the wrong tool to solve the traffic and parking problems. The TMA is working. Support and expand the TMA to deal with traffic and parking problems. Let it mature for a few more years and see how it mitigates our current problems. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Tiffany Griego to be followed by former Vice Mayor Greg Schmid. Tiffany Griego: Good evening. My name is Tiffany Griego; I'm Managing Director of Stanford Research Park. Tonight, my goal is to give you a bit of background on why Council decided to exclude the Stanford Research Park from the annual office limit in 2015. I also want to make myself available to answer any questions about the Stanford Research Park. The first thing I noticed when I was looking at this chart is our numbers don't match. I'd like to sync up with you because I don't recognize the growth in the years 2014, 2016, or 2017. I'm speculating that that's maybe transferrable development rights from the Mayfield Agreement. I'd like to square away our numbers. Thank you. I wanted to say the pace of growth in the Research Park did not worry Council in 2015 because the growth had been so modest in the Research Park since the recovery of the dot com bust. The letter we provided you this evening shares our data that we have and demonstrates the growth trends that we've seen in the Research Park since about 2004. In 2015, when Council discussed the annual office limit, Council's primary interest was in seeing us serve as a catalyst to bring together the companies in the Research Park and develop a comprehensive, standard, ongoing TDM program. We've brought that to fruition. They also felt in 2015 that the annual office limit was not the right tool to address traffic congestion in the Research Park. Tonight, we respectfully urge that you maintain the existing boundaries of the annual office limit and continue to exclude Stanford Research Park. We continue to be equally concerned about traffic congestion in the Research Park, and our TMA is working together and privately funding a very robust TDM program. We have branded our program SRP Go. We have made huge strides over the last couple of years. I'd like to share some of these accomplishments with you. We have built up a direct-to-user marketing campaign in which we are now in regular contact with 10,000 commuters in the Research Park. In fact, we would like all of TRANSCRIPT    Page 7 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  you to subscribe to our newsletter so that you can see real-time the activities that we are launching for people. To sign up, just go to srpgo.com and click on a link called subscribe to receive monthly SRP Go commuter news in the red banner at the top of that page. That's at srpgo. Our stanfordresearchpark.com website has also been updated on the transportation page with a video of commuters telling real stories about their commutes and why they're interested in the services we offer. I encourage you to check that out as well. WE are continuing to gather data. In August, we hit the 1 million miles saved mark with our carpool app alone. We have also distributed VTA passes to over 15,000 people in the Research Park. We have launched a long-distance shuttle that we're privately funding to the west side of San Francisco. We've launched a new Marguerite shuttle to serve the California Avenue Caltrain station and to support the Cal. Ave. businesses there. We also actively advocate. We feel that we worked hard to save the VTA 89 bus from the chopping block. We also advocate on behalf of Palo Alto and the Research Park with Caltrain, SamTrans, Silicon Valley Bicycling Coalition, MTC, and ATC. We are eager to report back to you in March 2018 on our ongoing efforts and accomplishments. I thank you again for valuing Stanford Research Park in Palo Alto. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kniss has a question. Vice Mayor Kniss: Tiffany, before you go, you don't have to answer this, but we did discuss it at one other point. What is your vacancy rate running in the Park? Ms. Griego: Our vacancy rate has climbed in the past 12 months from 1.8 percent to about 9.3 percent. Vice Mayor Kniss: To what? Ms. Griego: 9.3 percent as of August 2017. Vice Mayor Kniss: 9.3 percent vacancy. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Former Vice Mayor Schmid to be followed by Bob Moss. Greg Schmid: Thank you. I would encourage the Council to vote to extend the 50,000-square-foot limit. I would also recommend that it be extended to all monitored areas in Palo Alto, allowing current approved exemptions to continue. Start with some data. Since 1989 when the City started monitoring all commercial areas in Palo Alto, the average growth rate in square footage over that time has been 57,000 square feet. By putting a 50,000 limit only in three areas, you're in essence increasing that dramatically. It's important to recognize that we have a current crisis in TRANSCRIPT    Page 8 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  parking and traffic. If you look at your annual Citizens Survey, take the last 10 years, compare the last 2 years over the previous 8, questions on traffic concern has grown by 25 percent. Concern over public transportation has grown by over 50 percent. They've had a question on parking only 3 years. In those 3 years, concern has grown by 15 percent. In addition, we know that the Stanford Medical Center, exempted as it is, is going to add 1.3 million square feet of new workers commuting. It's going to start hitting us in 2018. Note also Stanford is negotiating with the County to add 2.3 million new square feet of buildings. Transportation mitigation must prove their worth dealing with existing traffic and parking problems before we add more. Vote for a 50K limit and vote to extend that limit to all monitored areas. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Bob Moss to be followed by Simon Cintz. Bob Moss: Thank you, Mayor Scharff and Council Members. I would like to see the ordinance extended and modified (inaudible) that are making some suggestions on changes. One of the ones I wanted to explain was I suggested reducing the exceptions for medical and office buildings slightly. The reason is the occupancy rates in those types of uses are higher now than they were a couple of years ago. You're going to have more intensive use if you have the same size building exempted. I suggest scaling it down slightly. In terms of development Citywide, this chart was interesting. In the last 16 years, if you only look at the three areas that are currently covered, El Camino, Downtown, and California Avenue, six times in 16 years we exceeded 50,000 square feet. If you add the Stanford Research Park in, that 50,000 square feet would have been exceeded 11 times, almost twice as often in 16 years, which is one of the reasons I think it's important to extend this Citywide and include the Research Park. Another thing I found interesting was over 500,000 square feet of office space was removed in other parts of the City. I was wondering where did that go to. My suggestion is that most of that went to housing. We're converting a lot of office space in other areas in the City into housing. Overall, the total office space, if you exclude Stanford, didn't increase that much in the last 16 years. Stanford plus the three areas that are covered was over 1 1/2 million square feet. That's quite a bit. Even after you reduce the 570,000 square feet that was removed all (inaudible) the City, we still added net about 650,000 square feet, which is a lot of office space. We have to start putting some controls on. We have to look at where we want to build offices. It's simpler and more rational to do it Citywide and not limit it to just those three areas. Particularly, excluding the Stanford Research Park is going to leave the door open for a lot more office development. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Simon Cintz. TRANSCRIPT    Page 9 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Simon Cintz: Good evening. My name is Simon Cintz. My family owns four small commercial properties in Palo Alto. These properties have been in our family since the 1950s. The largest building of these properties is two stories on El Camino with a total of 4,600 square feet. The bottom half is retail, and the top floor is office. It's been this way for over 50 years. The Council is considering removing the exemption for small office less than 2,000 square feet and the medical/dental exemption less than 5,000 square feet. I hope the Council will continue to preserve these exemptions for small projects. The Council sometimes forgets that not all commercial property owners who want to add office space are not developers or large corporations. There are a number of commercial property owners, much like our family, who own small properties that contribute to the Palo Alto community. To be clear, our family has no plans to convert any of our buildings to increase office space, but I felt it was important that someone speak for small commercial property owners like myself. Many small business owners and doctors and dentists in solo practice own their own buildings here in Palo Alto. By removing the exemption for small projects and throwing them into the same category as large projects, you have created an unfair burden on small property owners. Large developers may or may not find the office limit requirements economically bearable, but individual owners like our family would find them as insurmountable obstacles for small projects that don't have the economy of scale of large projects. I asked Ms. Claire Campbell what impact removing this exemption would have on small property owners. She answered that it's unclear at this point because the office limit ordinance is not final. However, I can guarantee that there will be no unfair impact on small property owners if these small projects continue to be exempt from the ordinance requirements. The Staff Report refers to people downsizing their projects to meet the small project exemption. If you want to limit office development, that's a good thing. Think about it. Also, do you really think the developer who wants to build 20,000 square feet of office is going to downsize to 2,000 square feet? It's more likely that those that chose to downsize were building projects that were slightly above 2,000 and decided to downsize to 2,000. Please remember that not all commercial property owners in Palo Alto are big developers. Please keep the current exemption for small projects. Thank you. Public Hearing closed at 6:57 P.M. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Now, we return to Council. The way I want to break this up is to actually take the first two items first, which is find the proposed ordinance exempt and extend the ordinance. Then, we take three. I wanted to break it up into four separate votes, which would be the A, B, C, D, and E. Is that four or five? It's five. Into five separate votes on each of TRANSCRIPT    Page 10 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  those items, so we have a focused discussion as we go through the process. The first thing we'll talk about is Items 1 and 2. We can make Motions and have comments and ask questions. Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: First, I just want to take the opportunity to thank Staff for a very excellent presentation. I thought the slides and the presentation really helped set us up for a good conversation tonight. The Mayor's suggestion of breaking up how we're going to go through this is a wise one. Thank you to everybody who came and spoke. I'd like to move the Staff recommendation for Items 1 and 2. Mayor Scharff: Do we have a second? I'll second it. Vice Mayor Kniss: Second. Mayor Scharff: Vice Mayor Kniss will second that. Would you like to speak to your Motion? MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to: A. Find the proposed Ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); and B. Adopt an Ordinance to extend the existing interim Annual Office Limit Ordinance Number 5357 for an additional seven months to expire on June 30, 2018, allowing time for development and adoption of a replacement Ordinance, as recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission on July 26, 2017. Council Member Wolbach: I don't think there's a need. Mayor Scharff: Vice Mayor Kniss. Vice Mayor Kniss: I'd echo what Council Member Wolbach just said. It's pretty self-explanatory. Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: I actually have some questions. Mayor Scharff: On those two items? Council Member DuBois: Yeah. On Slide Number 13, it's looking at the areas and the impacts. Could you explain the—right now, the Stanford … TRANSCRIPT    Page 11 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Vice Mayor Kniss: Can you tell us what pages you're going on? Council Member DuBois: It's 13 of the presentation. Right now, the current annual office limit area does not include Stanford Research Park. Correct? These totals you have at the bottom, are these incremental totals? It says Citywide without Stanford Research Park. Is that the AOL area plus 100,000, so it's actually 770,000? Is that how I read that? Ms. Campbell: If you would follow the column down for the subtotal for the annual office area limit, you'll see that there's 670,000 for that total. Council Member DuBois: My point is that these … Mayor Scharff: If you could speak up a little bit. Council Member DuBois: My point is this Citywide should be a greater total than the AOL area total, but it's less. Ms. Campbell: That's because of the—there's a significant amount of demolition. Council Member DuBois: I see. Does that total include—it's 670 minus the 570, is what you're saying. Ms. Campbell: Yes, exactly. Council Member DuBois: The Stanford Research Park is not shown in—that's shown in the Citywide numbers, so that's also negative. When you look at the Stanford Research numbers, it's a positive total. Ms. Campbell: If you were to follow the total along the bottom, just don't look at the 670. When you add up the Cal. Ave. area, the Downtown, El Camino Real, Stanford Research Park and other areas, you're going to get a total of 504,000 square feet. Council Member DuBois: Got it. Thank you. Thanks for clarifying that. I just had a question, again, on impacts of the current ordinance. Have we seen submissions outside the boundary areas differing from inside the boundary areas in the last 2 years? Ms. Campbell: No, there hasn't been anything significant. Council Member DuBois: That's my question on these two items. I'll wait for the rest. TRANSCRIPT    Page 12 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Mayor Scharff: Anyone else want to comment on these two items? I see no other lights. I'm going to take a vote on it unless someone wants to talk on it. If we could vote on the—Tanaka. Sorry. Council Member Tanaka: Just a quick question. Does Staff know what the office rental rates are right now in terms of—we heard from Stanford it went from 1 percent to 9 percent vacancy. Do we know what the office vacancy rates have been in Palo Alto and how that's trended? Ms. Gitelman: We don't know offhand. We can certainly look that up. Mayor Scharff: If we could vote on the board now. That passes unanimously. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Mayor Scharff: Now, we'll move on to Item Number 3. Vice Mayor Kniss: Mr. Mayor, might I just interrupt at this point? Mayor Scharff: Jump right in. Vice Mayor Kniss: If I might ask Judy Kleinberg if she knows what the vacancy rate is as head of the Chamber of Commerce. If you don't, it's fine. It's a figure we should have. Ms. Kleinberg: I don't know, but I can tell you that it will be hard to figure it out because there are some empty office buildings where some of our corporate members have moved out, and they are not up for re-rent. It's hard to say what's really empty and what isn't. We don't have an actual count. Vice Mayor Kniss: No one's in them, but they are still paying rent. Ms. Kleinberg: That's right. They're empty; that's right. Vice Mayor Kniss: Thanks. Mayor Scharff: the next Item is Item Number 3.A, which is the boundaries of the area that should … Vice Mayor Kniss: Wait. Should we vote on that? Mayor Scharff: We did and that passed unanimously. Boundaries of the area that should be subject to the annual limit. Seeing no lights, I will just TRANSCRIPT    Page 13 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  then say that I will move that we keep the existing boundaries in the City ordinance. Vice Mayor Kniss: Second Council Member DuBois: Second. Mayor Scharff: That's by Council Member DuBois. MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to direct Staff to include in the replacement Ordinance that the boundaries in the existing Ordinance should be subject to the Annual Limit. Mayor Scharff: I just want to say that there's no reason really to extend it to the Stanford Research Park. These are the critical areas, so we should just keep them where they are. Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: We have our Planning Commission there to give us advice. I thought the Minutes were quite interesting. Appreciate the work the PTC did. I don't really see a reason not to follow their advice. One of the comments was interesting. If we have this apply to the current areas and we have Stanford Research Park not under this constraint, it gives us a real good kind of AB test comparison about the effects of an annual limit versus relying on TDM programs. I think it's a good comparison point, to actually keep them separate and see how it goes. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: Related to this, the other areas that are on Slide 13—two things. One is could Staff respond to Tiffany Griego's comments about the development numbers in the SRP that are differing between their numbers and Staff's numbers in the chart. Ms. Gitelman: Yes. Thank you, Council Member Holman. I want to get together with Ms. Griego and make sure my assumption is correct. I think the numbers we're presenting reflect what we report to the VTA as the net increase in office/R&D. I think we've developed some kind of work-around for the square footage that was entitled through the Mayfield Development Agreement. What you're seeing is a difference based on how we do or don't report that square footage since it's already been entitled, but it's going to be metered out over time. I'll confirm that with Ms. Griego before we come back with a revised ordinance. Council Member Holman: Under other areas, the square footage that's been demolished, there are some pretty large numbers there. I'm not quite sure TRANSCRIPT    Page 14 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  where that would be, if it's other areas. Some of it could be the SOFA area. In SOFA I which is not included in the Downtown. Is that where that would be? Ms. Campbell: The bulk of that was related—I'll just rattle them off for you. We had 900 East Meadow, where it demo'd 85,000 square feet. We've had a couple more at 101 East Meadow and on Bayshore, which had another 164,000, and on San Antonio. We've definitely had—that was almost 250,000 square feet of demolition. That's 901 San Antonio, 2300 East Bayshore. It's definitely not within the annual office limit boundaries. It's those areas near San Antonio and off on that side of town. They went to housing. Council Member Holman: What was that? Ms. Campbell: It went to housing. Council Member Holman: That's what I would have thought also about the SOFA area because there was some office that was demolished there, that went to housing. I can support this, but I would ask that when this comes back for a permanent office Staff provide us any updates on any bubbles that we're seeing popping up in these other outside areas, so we can have an updated analysis of what we need to be mindful of at the time that we're considering the permanent ordinance. Ms. Gitelman: Thank you, Council Member Holman. We prepared this report for every fiscal year, so we'll have data for the—I'm not sure we'll have updated data by the time we bring this back to you. We do this report and report to the VTA every August or something like that. Council Member Holman: If that's the case, then I'll give it a shot that we include Citywide—in other words, it'd be Option 3.3, that the ordinance would apply Citywide except Stanford Research Park. That would be my Substitute. Mayor Scharff: Is there a second or are we waiting for the … Seeing no second, we'll move on. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to direct Staff to include in the replacement Ordinance that the Annual Limit should apply citywide, with the exception of the Stanford Research Park. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND TRANSCRIPT    Page 15 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou. Council Member Kou: I'd like to make a Substitute Motion too. I'd like the ordinance to apply Citywide with Stanford Research Park. Mayor Scharff: Say that again, Council Member Kou. Council Member Kou: Make the ordinance apply Citywide including Stanford Research Park. Mayor Scharff: Do we have a second for that? Hearing no second, that fails as well for lack of a second. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member XX to direct Staff to include in the replacement Ordinance that the Annual Limit should apply citywide, including Stanford Research Park. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Mayor Scharff: Now, if we could vote on the board on the original Motion. Do you want to read the original Motion? Council Member Kou: Yeah. Mayor Scharff: There it is. That passes unanimously. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Council Member DuBois: Can you clarify the process we're using here? We're taking this piecemeal, and I think it'd be good maybe—you said it very quickly. I'd like to understand how we're going to address the rest of this. Mayor Scharff: We're going to take each one of these and discuss them one-by-one and make a motion on each of them. Council Member DuBois: Some of these could be tradeoffs between components. Voting on them individually is a little tough. Mayor Scharff: Everyone thinks about it differently. I think it's better to have individual motions. If there's something at the end that you felt you want to come back and do it … Council Member DuBois: If we have a discussion of the overall ordinance at the end … TRANSCRIPT    Page 16 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Mayor Scharff: After we've had that vote, I don't want to re-vote it. If you wanted to make a Motion where there was a tradeoff or something, I would allow it. It seems like it's a much more focused discussion that way, and we get to the heart of the matter. The next one is the quantitative annual limit, which is B. Vice Mayor Kniss: I would move approval. Mayor Scharff: Vice Mayor Kniss, would you like to speak? Go ahead. Vice Mayor Kniss: Did you get a second? Council Member DuBois: Second. Mayor Scharff: Wait. You move approval of what? 50,000 square feet. Vice Mayor Kniss: Yes, the 50. Do you want me to read the whole thing? Continue to use the 50,000 gross square feet as the annual limit. MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to direct Staff to continue to use 50,000 Gross Square Feet (GSF) as the Annual Limit. Vice Mayor Kniss: Frankly, given that there doesn't seem to be … Mayor Scharff: I think that's a second from Council Member DuBois. Is that correct? Council Member DuBois: (inaudible) Mayor Scharff: I heard you first. You can withdraw your second if you want. Vice Mayor Kniss now. Vice Mayor Kniss: Given that we're looking back at the last 2 years and not seeing that we're even pushing up against the 50,000 square feet, it would seem—an odd word—sensible to leave it at this. I can't see any reason for altering it at this point. I don't see thousands of citizens in here looking for a different answer than the one I think we're headed for tonight. That's it. Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: For the newer Council Members, we had extensive discussions about this. For me, a big part of it is making space for housing, trying to offset some of the competition between office construction and housing construction. I think Council Member Schmid brought up some older data. When we looked at the averages, several of us wanted to TRANSCRIPT    Page 17 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  actually see a lower annual limit. 50,000 is quite high. The way this ordinance is structured now, it's really just a governor on massive spikes of construction, which have huge impacts. The intent was that it would probably not happen very often, and that's what we've seen. Just the fact that it hasn't been triggered I don't think is a knock against the ordinance. I actually think it was part of the point of the ordinance. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Fine. Council Member Fine: Thank you. A quick question for Staff. I was a little struck by the demolition totals you have here, about half a million square feet over the 16 years. That's Citywide, including in the ordinance area to some cases. Just for my colleagues, a quick calculation. That's about 36,000 square feet on average being taken off the market each year in our City. I would make an amendment that we use 50,000 net new square feet as the annual limit. Mayor Scharff: I think it already is net new square feet. Council Member Fine: Is this gross instead of net new? Ms. Campbell: It's net new. Council Member Fine: We're treating it as net new. Mr. Keene: (inaudible) Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: I'll be supporting this Motion. Also, I just wanted to check. There was a line in the Staff Report about the Comprehensive Plan. I just wanted to seek clarity. I may as well ask it now; it seems as good a time as any. It's on the last page of the Staff Report, Page 12 of the Staff Report, Packet Page 23, the very top paragraph talking about the cumulative cap on nonresidential development Downtown. I think we had some back-and-forth on that. Does Staff remember—did we end up keeping that or scrapping that in the upcoming, revised Comprehensive Plan? Ms. Gitelman: The Council's direction with regard to these growth management measures were different, depending on which one you're talking about. About the cumulative cap Citywide? Council Member Wolbach: I'm looking again on Page 12 of the Staff Report. The cumulative cap on nonresidential development Downtown. TRANSCRIPT    Page 18 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Ms. Gitelman: I think the Council's direction was to eliminate that measure because we had this annual limit in its place. On the cumulative cap, even the cumulative cap Citywide we changed it to the office/R&D only, not all other nonresidential uses like retail and warehousing. Council Member Wolbach: That's one place where the Staff Report is maybe—I was just a little bit confused by it. Again, really good Staff Report all over. For me, that is one of the reasons among several why I'm really supportive of continuing the office cap. Just to speak on this project in general, it really is one of several tools that working in conjunction are designed to address multiple concerns. I agree with those who say that this isn't necessarily the best tool to address single occupancy vehicle trips, but this isn't the primary tool to address that. This is about addressing several concerns including spikes as Council Member DuBois pointed out, the challenges around the jobs/housing imbalance, and trying to encourage development of housing or retail and other things that our community is in more need of than office and R&D space. I wanted to point out—I think Hamilton pointed it out too. On Packet Page 17, page 6 of the Staff Report, Staff's interpretation of what we've seen in the last couple of years is developers are focusing on pursuing other commercial, such as retail—that's the implication—and housing uses. I would consider that a resounding success for this program. I'm very supportive of the office cap in general. As we go through this and we get onto the next couple of items within this, we maybe will discuss a couple of minor tweaks. I would just encourage that, as we are considering tweaks one way or another, we keep those tweaks judicious and moderate. I'm glad for this one, that we're sticking with what we have. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou. Council Member Kou: As Vice Mayor Kniss said, we haven't really reached the 50,000 square feet in the last couple of years, since this interim ordinance went in. Obviously, it's being successful at what it's intended to do. I'd like to make a substitute motion here, which is to reduce the square footage to 40,000. That way we can ensure—the reason why we're doing this is to ensure that we produce more housing. Even at the 40K square feet, it still means that's about 160 more people that are going to be needing housing if we use the rule of thumb of four employees per 1,000 square feet. We still need to work on housing on that. If we reduce the number—even that is a great number at 160 people. I'd really like to see it reduced to 40 [sic] square feet and make it even more robust and work at housing even more. Can I get a second? Mayor Scharff: Do we have a second? TRANSCRIPT    Page 19 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Council Member Holman: I'd second it. Mayor Scharff: Seconded by Council Member Holman. Council Member Kou, would you like to speak further to your Motion? SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to direct Staff to use 40,000 Gross Square Feet (GSF) as the Annual Limit. Council Member Kou: I think I spoke to it. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: I would support this. If you look at the chart, there are only 2 additional years that would have been affected by this, 2002 and 2016, which were in the 40s. I agree with Council Member Kou. One of the purposes of this is to not have—there are a few purposes of this. Not to have spikes in office development that create housing demand and create more traffic and parking demand, but it's also to make way for more housing development. If we try to focus—use this tool to try to help focus our development community on creating housing, this is one tool that could help steer us in that direction. For that reason—as Council Member DuBois mentioned earlier, we did talk about having different numbers, and we landed at 50. Fifty was a compromise; that may be where we end up tonight too. As we look at the impacts of development and we look at the impacts of what kinds of development we want to support, it is housing over office. That's why I support the substitute motion. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Filseth. Council Member Filseth: I think I'll pass. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: Just briefly, I appreciate the intent of the substitute motion. I'll be not supporting the substitute; I will support the main motion. On the question of how we can additionally incentivize housing, Hamilton—I'm giving him a lot of shout-outs today—mentioned the idea of maybe a housing overlay for those areas affected by the office cap. That's not really agendized tonight, so I don't think we can get too deeply into it. If we have a chance to take up something like that in the future, that would be a good supplement to this discussion. I think 50,000 has worked well for the last couple of years, and we can continue that for now. TRANSCRIPT    Page 20 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Mayor Scharff: Briefly, I'll be supporting the main Motion and not the Substitute Motion. If we could vote on the board. This is on the Substitute Motion. The Substitute Motion fails on a 5-4 vote with Council Member DuBois voting against his own Motion and Council Member Kou voting yes and Council Member Filseth voting yes and Council Member Holman voting yes. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou yes Mayor Scharff: If we could vote on the main Motion now. The main Motion passes on a 8-1 vote with Council Member Kou voting no. MOTION PASSED: 8-1 Kou no Mayor Scharff: Now, we'll move on to the fate of the unused allocations. Vice Mayor Kniss: You want to go first? Mayor Scharff: No, I want to go first. The fate of unused allocations is an interesting thing. The purpose of this ordinance is to meter the overall pace of development. We do have zeroes at times, and other times we've had 100,000 square feet. That's really what we want to do, meter it and spread it out. We should basically go ahead and rollover the unused allocations, but only roll it up for up to 2 years, which means you'd roll it up 1 more year. Roll it over, not roll it up. The most you'd have is 100,000 square feet in any 1 year. That would require a zero the year before, which is possible. On the whole, those kind of spikes are actually rare. That would be my Motion, that we rollover the unused allocation for up to 2 years before they expire. Council Member Wolbach: I'll second that. MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to direct Staff to include in the replacement Ordinance to roll-over unused allocations for up to two years before they expire. Mayor Scharff: I'll just briefly speak a little bit more to it. Having the flexibility of that is really important for people to have that, so we don't have these huge queues that could get backed up after you go through a recession where we have no office space developed, and then you have a large queue where it takes a long time to work through that. What you want to do is meter it over an average as opposed to one particular year or the other. We still meet the whole thing of only having no more than 100,000 square feet. Council Member Wolbach. TRANSCRIPT    Page 21 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Council Member Wolbach: I'm going to support this. I'm interested in what my Colleagues think as well. What's the phrase we heard at our second retreat? I'll stay open to persuasion, but this is a good balance. If you look at the four options that Staff laid out on Page 2 of the Staff Report—we're in Item C now. Item 1 is essentially what we've been using for the pilot, and it's worked. It's definitely worked. Item 2 as it was originally suggested of 3 years is too permissive. This motion rolls that back from a 3-year rollover to a 2-year rollover. Item 3 would guarantee that you'd end up getting up to the 100,000 of leftover that could be used. I'm not a fan of that. This would just allow it occasionally. Item 4 is far too permissive. If we went with Option 4, it would frankly undermine the entire intent of the office cap. If there's 40,000 one year and 60,000 the next, that's still moderating the pace. This is the right balance, so I'll support it. Mayor Scharff: Vice Mayor Kniss. Vice Mayor Kniss: Since I seem to be the one who's usually willing to go a little further than a lot of you, I actually would have gone up to 3 years on this. I missed some of the comments that former Vice Mayor Schmid made. My recollection is, looking back over the period of time since '89, the average was about 50,000 square feet a year. Do you remember that at all, Hillary? I'm pretty sure it was right in that. I know what they started with was maybe 258, and we still hadn't hit the cap that was set in 1989. Am I correct? Ms. Gitelman: That's right. I'd have to go back and check those numbers, though. It's such a different data set than the one we've presented here (crosstalk). Vice Mayor Kniss: Trust me. I went over those a lot. I remember in the late '80s, either '86 or '89, they looked at the number of square feet Downtown and said when it hits an additional 10 percent—which is what you indicated to me last year; we thought we were getting close to that—then we would look at it again. That's a long period of time to add just 10 percent to the total Downtown. I'm going to support this. As I said, I would have gone up to three. There will be some point in the future where we may want to use this in a variety of different ways. For now, I'm happy supporting the 2 years that the Mayor moved. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: Again, I'm going to offer a Substitute Motion. That would be to do C.1, which is not to roll over the unused allocations for future years. With a second, I'll explain why. TRANSCRIPT    Page 22 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Mayor Scharff: Do we have a second. Council Member Kou: Second. Mayor Scharff: Seconded by Council Member Kou. Speak to your Motion? SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to direct Staff to include in the replacement Ordinance that unused allocations do not roll-over to future years. Council Member Holman: It really is counterintuitive to what we're trying to do here. What we're trying to do is eliminate the spikes and to moderate the impacts of development. Rolling over such that—as the Mayor had indicated, in 2019, for instance, there could basically be 105,000 square feet of development if the market continues to be soft, and we don't get applications this next year. That's exactly what we're trying to forestall. It also makes way for more office development when what we're supposed to be promoting is housing development to offset the amount of office square footage that we have now. If we're going to be promoting and supporting development, it should really be towards those kinds of development that serve the public and our quality of life, including housing, retail, and community services, not office. That's why the Substitute Motion. I see your support. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou. Council Member Kou: The other purpose of this ordinance is also with the no rollover is to ensure that our transportation with traffic congestion as well as parking is mitigated. It has a little bit of success where the TMA was implemented. It's not in its full successful phase yet. I really think that we need to see more time dedicated to ensuring that this ordinance does do its full intent. Traffic, as you know, has been—there was the report that came out on one of the news media that said the TMA is working in Downtown. There's less people using their cars. That's not so for the entire City. I would really like to see a longer period to ensure that it is successful in what it's implemented to do. I also have a correction to make here with regards to the TMA. On one of the news media, it did indicate—the reporter is Alejandro Reyes Villardi [phonetic] with the San Francisco Time News. It says here the Chamber says that the TMA implemented the parking as well as the shuttles as well as the solutions for traffic and the parking RPPs. I don't think they did that. I think it was actually the City who implemented all of that. I just want to make sure that that correction is put in place where the right person gets the credit. That's my reasons for wanting to see this no rollover. TRANSCRIPT    Page 23 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Mayor Scharff: Council Member Fine. Council Member Fine: Just a question for Staff about these annual caps and how they may play out over different years. I'm looking to you, Hillary, and Jim as well. Do you have any examples of other cities implementing these multiyear caps and what timeframe they're using? Do they do it 1 year or are they trying to affect the curve over 2 of 3 years? I'm just wondering how we get that balance. Why did we choose 1 over 50 or 2 or 3 over 50 versus 40 over 3? Ms. Gitelman: We did look at a number of different cities when we first brought the idea of the annual limit forward and adopted the interim ordinance. I'm going by memory here. I think we looked at San Rafael. We looked at Walnut Creek or another city in that area. Then, we looked at San Francisco. San Francisco has a program that was adopted by the voters, I believe, and it has a small cap and an ADM cap. Those allocations do roll forward if unused. In the other cases, there were different constraints or different parameters around the limit. I'd have to research them again and get back to you on the details. Council Member Fine: Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: I think the other one was Mountain View. They have prioritization projects with performance metrics for large projects. I remember that carried a lot of weight with me when we had that discussion. I just want to clarify between the two motions. I think I would support the motion I heard you make, but I don't think it's reflected here. You said that it would roll over if it was zero (crosstalk). Mayor Scharff: No, I didn't. I was probably just being inarticulate for the moment. Council Member DuBois: To me, that would make more sense if there was a recession and it was zero and we allowed it to roll over. If that's not your Motion, then … Mayor Scharff: That's my Motion. It's captured adequately. Council Member DuBois: I would support the Substitute Motion. Again, a question is what problem are you trying to solve here with this rollover. The point of the ordinance was to set a fairly high limit that we rarely hit, six times in the last 16 years, and just smooth out those spikes. If it just rolls over all the time, then we basically have just—the ordinance is really doing TRANSCRIPT    Page 24 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  nothing at that point. This is not a cap; it's an annual growth limit. It's very different from a hard cap. It's kind of smart. We haven't really talked about the performance metrics, but to me those go hand-in-hand with this. The point of it was we have a list of projects in a year and we have a means to score those projects against criteria that we value. Otherwise, we'd just use our normal process. Adding the rollover really eliminates a large part of the point of the ordinance. I'd like to see us continue with no rollover. If we do get into a recession, Council can always adjust. It feels like we're trying to solve a nonexistent problem right now. Mayor Scharff: Vice Mayor Kniss. Vice Mayor Kniss: One of the things that I'm struggling with because we haven't brought it up is—Hillary, describe the process. I am someone who wants to build a smallish building in the Downtown. I begin that process this year; this is now 2017 in the fall, heading toward fall. About when do you think that building is going to actually come to fruition? Ms. Gitelman: I think your point is a good one. It can take a while to get through the City's entitlement and permitting process. Then, a project applicant will typically, once they have approvals in hand, still have to go through financing and can take a while to get it into the ground and to complete construction. It's hard to predict with certainty exactly what all those timeframes are. They vary depending on the property in question and the developer and their expertise. Vice Mayor Kniss: We can be talking about a number of years. Ms. Gitelman: Yes. Vice Mayor Kniss: In fact, if I look at JJ&F, which finally opened, I think it was approved in—looking at Karen, who's got a good memory—2010 perhaps. Mayor Scharff: 2009 because I wasn't on the Council. Vice Mayor Kniss: 2009. Council Member Holman: That sounds right, 2009. I believe it was before we … Mayor Scharff: We were not on the Council. Council Member Holman: It was before we were on Council, yes, or it would have been better. TRANSCRIPT    Page 25 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Vice Mayor Kniss: If it predates you two … It tells you how long it takes for this to actually get on paper, so that we're looking at it tonight. If you take a look at this, I thought initially it would be quite easy to tell when the recessions were, but even at that it's a little hard to tell, except maybe 2003, which was the bottom of the dot com boom. You can tell 2001 is the top of the dot com boom. Even at that, that doesn't make much sense because you can't simply decide in '01 that you're going to put that up. Probably a lot of those were approved in '96 and '97. Even at that, that would be moving it along pretty fast. As we look at this, one of my objections to not allowing rollover is that defies our economy. Our economy does go up and down. Case in point right now, I hear from some that there's a glut of apartments on the market because so many apartments have been built. As I think back through the years, I can think of when lots and lots of apartments were built, went on the market, and then the market fell. Putting up a building to begin with is really an act of faith going through our whole process. We're considered to be one of the hardest cities on the Peninsula to do that. Going through that entire process means that you're probably looking at, at least 5 years. By the end of that time, you must almost wonder if it's still worth it to do it. To not have the rollover really does defy us being able to look at the economy and see what a difference it makes as to whether we're in a recession or whether we're really in a boom time. I'm just not sure that we can have this as such a totally predictable outcome. Again, I'm staying with supporting the original Motion. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Filseth. Council Member Filseth: Like most of us here, I really think that the annual office growth limit looks like it's been effective at what it set out to do, which was slow down the pace of office growth. That was the objective, and it has not prevented any office expansion or anything like that. By and large, this is one of the more successful things that the Council's done in the last couple of years. Up to now, the motions we've made have been basically to recognize that and continue it because that's what we're here to do. However, much of what we're going to go into in the next two or three Motions, including this one, basically relaxes the ordinance that we have had up until now. As we talk about why would we want to dilute or relax the ordinance we have now, you need to look at this through the lens of what's good for residents because that's who we work for. One way to look at this is—I'm going to start from the Palo Alto view as opposed to the regional view, which I'll get to in a second. The Palo Alto view. The fact is the developers of these projects don't pay the full impact cost of bringing more jobs into the City in terms of housing, transportation, parking, and a whole host of further downstream and, in many cases, less tangible effects. Some people want to focus exclusively on mitigation, but you never get 100- TRANSCRIPT    Page 26 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  percent mitigation on everything. Particularly some of the less tangible things you simply can't mitigate. We fixate a lot on traffic, but there's a lot of stuff. I can tell you that a lot of people ask for better traffic in town. Very few ask for worse traffic but not as bad as it could have been. Those costs get socialized to residents. Every time we do a nexus study on some impact or other—there are a lot of things we don't do nexus studies on, but some we do. Invariably, we don't set the impact fee at the true impact. Instead, we look around at all our neighboring cities, and they don't set it there either, so we don't either. The net-net is that the developers don't pay the full social costs of doing this. Any cost that doesn't get picked up by the developer gets socialized to residents. In that light, it's hard to argue how diluting or weakening the annual limit ordinance is good for Palo Altans. As Council Member DuBois said, doing the rollover defeats a lot of the purpose of doing that. That's the Palo Alto resident view. From the regional view because you have to look at these land use things in terms of regional issues, these kinds of costs, transportation, housing, parking, lots of intangibles and so forth, they are significantly lower in a place like Diridon Station, which has less expensive housing, a big local workforce, much richer transit infrastructure options than we do in the mid-Peninsula. It's hard to make a case to dilute or weaken the annual limit from a regional perspective as well. I don't think we have a clear explanation—it'd have to be really contorted—why going to a 2-year rollover or a more-year rollover is good for the overwhelming majority of Palo Alto residents who aren't directly financially interested in this. I'm going to support the Substitute Motion. We'll probably have a similar discussion when we come the competition and performance scoring issue as well. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: Just really quickly. Before I forget it, I do want to thank Staff for what I consider to be a really superior Staff Report. It provides options. It lays it all out. It very clearly identifies what the Planning Commission positions were. I have to say I think it's one of the more excellent Staff Reports that I've seen in a very long time. Appreciate that very much. To speak to why not to do a rollover as consistent with the Motion, just one thing that Vice Mayor Kniss brought up. I appreciate the perspectives as this Council usually has at least two perspectives, at least. It's sort of like trying to time the stock market. Projects take a certain amount of time. Some take more than others depending on how complex, how contentious, that sort of thing. Council Member DuBois said if we have a real downturn every 15, 20 years, then we could go back and address this in the climate at the time. To do it ahead of time is premature and really playing the stock market, sort of roulette wheel. What we've had in place TRANSCRIPT    Page 27 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  has been very helpful, very useful, and moderates our growth, which is the intention of this to begin with. Appreciate support for the substitute motion. Mayor Scharff: I just want to say it actually does help residents. It creates a moderate environment, which takes the swings from recession. It's most likely to do what Council Member Wolbach started with, which was in those years you could have 40 and in other years you could have 60. I was intrigued that Council Member DuBois liked the idea of going from zero and then rolling that over. That's the other. Those are the two cases that both argue for strong support of it. What we're looking to do here is say to people, "In these areas, you are not going to average more than 50,000 feet. At any one time, you're not going to have more than 100,000 square feet under development." That creates the right business environment, and it doesn't say we are so restrictive that if through a timing issue—Vice Mayor Kniss' point was really well articulated. These development projects take a really long time. You can miss the window; it's really easy. You could have an EIR issue that just knocks you over into the next one. If two people get knocked over into the EIR issue, you could have two people at the same time, and then one of their projects can go forward and one cannot. By having the window basically be a 2-year window, it allows more flexibility, and it will have a better outcome. We can blithely sit up here and say it's okay if someone's project gets delayed a year. The cost to that person and the uncertainty involved is huge dollars. By having that flexibility of a 2- year window roughly, I don't think hurts residents in the least. Traffic, parking, all those issues are not really relevant to it. We've said you could have up to 50,000 a year. What we're doing is mitigating the most difficult aspects of this ordinance, which is the timing, if you go through the process and you get stuck and can't have your project for a whole year. That's really what this does. It takes out the worst excesses. I would hope that we'd support the original motion and not the substitute motion. Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: As seconder of the original Motion, I figured I'd weigh in. I'll try to keep it brief. On the Substitute Motion—I actually first want to recognize the questions and the ideas raised by those supporting the substitute motion are really strong. You can vote your conscience on either of these. I don't think the result of going in either direction of this will be radically different. Government regulation should not be more onerous than is necessary to achieve the goals of that regulation. As far as the goal of smoothing things out and having averages, we're saying over a 3-year— even if you go with the original motion—period—it'd be actually with either one. Over a 3-year period, you're not going to have 150,000 in development. Over a 4-year period, you're not going to have more than 200,000 square feet of development. That would be the same over a couple TRANSCRIPT    Page 28 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  of years with either one. It does allow a little more flexibility. If Council Member DuBois is comfortable with one year having zero and the next year having 100, then that means we're comfortable with having 100 one year. Anything above that is an uncomfortable spike. Above that is an uncomfortable spike. If you look over the course—we're talking about the cumulative impacts. The average over 5 years, over 10 years is the other issue that we need to look at. With either of these motions, either the main or the substitute, you achieve those goals. I'm fine with everyone voting their conscience on this. I will be voting for the main Motion. They're both valid. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou. Council Member Kou: Basically, in terms of the length of time for a project to be approved, it can be very easily approved very quickly within the timeframe if the developer didn't ask for extras, like over-developing on the lot or in zoning that it's not capable of doing, certainly with the mass and the compatibility, etc. Of course, if they provide sufficient parking, there will be no problem going through the pipeline and going through Planning and getting the permit. Also, with JJ&F, if I remember correctly, it was due to financing that they were taking a longer time in order to get to where they needed to be. With the rollover and extra square footage, the concern is for another 429 University to come through when it only provides three housing units with over 11,000 square feet of office space. Actually, it's 20,407 square feet of commercial space with only 34 parking spaces within the building, and the rest going to the Assessment District. This is what we're trying to avoid over here with the no rollover, so that we can actually mitigate our traffic problems and help the Transportation Management folks. They have a hard enough job. I'd really like to—I hope we'll get support for this Substitute Motion. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: If we could now vote on the Substitute Motion, not the main motion. The Substitute Motion fails on a 5-4 vote with Council Members DuBois, Kou, Filseth, and Holman voting yes. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou, yes Mayor Scharff: Now, if we could vote on the main Motion. Council Member DuBois: (inaudible) Mayor Scharff: Sure, go ahead. Council Member DuBois: I just want to understand this wording. We're saying it rolls over for up to 2 years. Is the intent that you could go … TRANSCRIPT    Page 29 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Mayor Scharff: The intent is really 1 year. Council Member DuBois: You don't mean 0-0-150? Mayor Scharff: No. Council Member DuBois: That's the way I read this. Mayor Scharff: That's the way Staff did it when they said 2 years. Council Member DuBois: Could we say it rolls over for up to 1 year? Mayor Scharff: I'm happy to clarify that. Shall we just say "up to 1 year"? would that give clarity to Staff and give clarity to you, Council Member DuBois? Council Member DuBois: Yeah. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to amend the Motion to state, “up to one year before they expire.” Council Member Wolbach: Thanks for catching that. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Filseth. Council Member Filseth: I understand the arguments in favor of the rollover that we're about to vote on. I think they're by and large developer-centric. We need to look at resident-centric. I'm going to vote no on the main motion. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Fine. Nope. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to direct Staff to include in the replacement Ordinance to roll-over unused allocations for up to one year before they expire. Mayor Scharff: Now, if we could vote on the main Motion. That passes on a 5-4 vote with Council Members Wolbach, Kniss, Scharff, Tanaka, and Fine voting yes. MOTION PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou no TRANSCRIPT    Page 30 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Mayor Scharff: On we go. The next portion of this is the uses that are exempt from the annual limit. Does anyone want to address that issue? Council Member Fine. Council Member Fine: Just a quick question to Staff. How many of these exemptions have we given in these different categories over the past year and a half or so? Ms. Gitelman: I think we have had applicants take advantage at least in their conversations and in shaping applications of the small exemptions, the 2,000-square-foot and the 5,000-square-foot. I don't know if we've actually processed any to completion. Council Member Fine: So a couple of them. Ms. Gitelman: The development community is aware of them and making use of them. Council Member Fine: This may be more of a ballpark in your knowledge. For the medical office developments, what is the general size of those? Are they generally under 5,000 or do some of them … Ms. Gitelman: It really varies if you're talking about one sole proprietor, one dentist, one therapist. It could be 5,000 square feet or even less. Someone could be developing a building with a lot of medical office space that could be much larger. Council Member Fine: Do we have any data of the distribution of these medical offices, how large they are? Ms. Gitelman: We'd have to do some research. Council Member Fine: That would be helpful coming back here. The reason I'm bringing this up for my colleagues is I was just trying to think about what kind of offices are 2,000 square feet or less, what kind of medical offices are 5,000 or less. I can think of some that are. I can think of some that are above that. If the purpose is specifically to exempt medical offices, then 5,000 may be too low. If our purpose is that we specifically want smaller medical offices, then we may be getting that here. I would just put it to my colleagues. I wasn't exactly clear what the policy purpose was, whether it's the use or the size of these on these exemptions. Mayor Scharff: Was that a question? Council Member Fine: For Staff. TRANSCRIPT    Page 31 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Mayor Scharff: I think we're looking at you. Ms. Gitelman: As I indicated to Council Member Fine, we'll have to research that issue and get back to him. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: I was going to offer—I also have a couple of questions here. To address Council Member Fine's question, it really is the question of use and the question of size. If you build a big hospital, I don't think that's something we'd want to just make an exemption for. We'd want to have a conversation about that. The size of 5,000 was very intentional. I actually had a question for Staff about the definition of medical offices. We've known for several years and it's been exacerbated over the last couple of years, the concern about space in our community for sole practitioners who provide psychological services, therapists, psychologists. I was wondering are therapists and psychologists considered medical. If it's not clear, then we—if it's up to basically Staff interpretation or Council interpretation, then I'd suggest we clarify that they would be. I want to hear from Staff if it's clear one way or the other or if it's ambiguous. Ms. Campbell: The medical office use is what we have defined in our 18.04 section of the Zoning Code. Maybe I can just read you that first sentence or so. Medical office means a use providing consultation, diagnosis, therapeutic, preventative, or corrective personal treatment services by doctors, dentists, medical and dental laboratories, and similar practitioners of medical and healing arts for humans, licensed for such practice by the State of California. Council Member Wolbach: Would Staff say that clearly and unambiguously includes psychologists and therapist? Was that an affirmative yes? Looks like that was an affirmative yes from Staff. Ms. Campbell: Yes, yes. Council Member Wolbach: I want to get that on the record. Thank you. In that case, I'm comfortable with that definition not needing any modification. There is one thing I would like to suggest we add to this. I would suggest we actually just add one thing within "b." We're in Item D.1, subsection b. My Motion is to do that, but under "b" it would read "medical office and/or nonprofit." Vice Mayor Kniss: I'm glad to second it when you get done with it. TRANSCRIPT    Page 32 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Council Member Wolbach: I want to make sure it's clear. That's the Motion. I'll speak to it after I get a second. Vice Mayor Kniss: I will second. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to direct Staff to maintain the current list of exemptions for (a) Office/R&D development less than 2,000 GSF; (b) Medical office and/or deed restricted non-profit office development less than 5,000 GSF total; and (c) Self- mitigating projects that propose sufficient housing to meet the housing demand of additional employment. Mayor Scharff: You should clarify that it's not cumulative. You couldn't do 5,000 of medical office and 5,000 of nonprofit. It's within that 5,000. Council Member Wolbach: That is correct. Any changes we make to this, we should be gentle. That's why I want to be really clear with the language here. This would say that within that 5,000-square-foot exemption, if you're proposing a development, you're applying for that exemption, you could say, "We have 5,000 square feet of medical," or you could say, "We have 5,000 square feet of nonprofit space." That space can only be used for nonprofits or you could do some mix. You could say half of it's going to be for medical, and half of it's going to be nonprofit, or some other ratio. It wouldn't change the size. It wouldn't expand the size of the exemption. It would merely expand the allowed uses to include nonprofits. I hope that's very clear. I hope others will support it. Mayor Scharff: Vice Mayor Kniss. Vice Mayor Kniss: Yes, I support it. One thing I want to ask Staff is what is our definition of a nonprofit. Ms. Gitelman: Thank you for that question, Vice Mayor Kniss. I think we're going to have to work with the City Attorney's Office, if this is the Council's direction, to develop a definition and a way to frankly administer something like this. We'll have to give it quite a bit of thought. Vice Mayor Kniss: Sometimes it's somewhat complicated to really identify the nonprofit even with their status. That would be helpful. Ms. Gitelman: It might be one thing to identify it on Day 1 when the office space opens. Imagine 30 years from now evaluating future tenants. It could be a challenge. TRANSCRIPT    Page 33 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Vice Mayor Kniss: It can get messy, right. One other thing. I'm seconding this, so I'm really speaking to it at the same time. Self-mitigating projects that propose sufficient housing to meet the housing demand of additional employment, have we ever had anything like that apply? Ms. Gitelman: We have not had any applications using this exemption. I have talked to one developer who was interested in trying it out, but we've never seen an application. Vice Mayor Kniss: I remember us having this very extensive discussion on this before and including that. It's always interesting when you visit something a year or so later to say did this ever come up, is this something that really is a need. I don't suggest taking it out, but it would be very interesting if one of these projects actually did come to us. With that, it has my support. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Filseth. Council Member Filseth: Again, the existing ordinance has generally worked pretty well including the current exemptions. I support those. I don't see anything wrong with the one that's here. My inclination is to support it. The only thing I would say is I hope we're not going to get a whole string of more exemptions that go on, so that by the end of the night we've got 20 of them or something like that. That's not how we should do that as a process here. My inclination is I'm happy to support this. If there's another dozen, I'm probably going to vote against them. Mayor Scharff: With that comment, can we vote? I'm just kidding. Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: I would like to offer an Amendment to this, Council Member Wolbach. Part of it is for clarity and part of it is out of a concern. "B," the way it reads currently is medical office and/or nonprofit development less than 5,000 square feet. I think the intention would be more clearly stated if it was "b, medical office," as previously stated, and add a "d" that is nonprofit development. Right now, it looks like it could be a combination of—I'm not quite sure what it means. I can't imagine a medical office and a nonprofit joining together. On this end of the dais, there was a little bit of confusion. Does that mean together they're going to be 10,000 square feet of a combination of medical office and nonprofit? The other thing I would suggest—for me, it would be to add a new part d that is for nonprofit space less than 3,000 square feet and amend "b" to be just medical office as it currently is. The reason for that is because I don't think what we want is to see new development projects—as much as I'm supportive of nonprofits and everybody up here and many people in the TRANSCRIPT    Page 34 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  community understand that, I don't want to see development projects come forward and ask for an exemption for a very well-funded nonprofit as many in this community are and exempt the 5,000 square feet. What we're trying to support as a community and what needs our support are the smaller nonprofits that need smaller square footage and won't be "used" to make a development larger. That is why I'm asking to change "b" back to medical office of less than 5,000 square feet as it was, and to add a new part d that's for nonprofit development less than 3,000 square feet. I look to the maker to see if he would accept this for both purposes of clarity and also to help direct the nonprofit spaces to be smaller. Council Member Wolbach: A couple of thoughts. I'm not going to accept it as a friendly Amendment. I'd like to explain why. Your points are well taken, and I appreciate them very much. There are two reasons why I'm not going to accept the amendment. One is I did not want to expand the potential size of an exempt project where the overall size of an exempt project could be 5,000 square feet of medical plus 3,000 square feet of nonprofit. Then, you could add 2,000 square feet of office—1,999. You could have a 9,999-square-foot development that would be exempt if we were to move forward with that amendment. I don't want to do that. We are making a couple of changes here from the existing ordinance, including the last one which was pretty controversial. I just don't want to go that far. Just like the medical offices, if the development says this is going to be 5,000 square feet of nonprofit space, that doesn't mean it has to be all for one nonprofit. They could say this space is nonprofit space, and then have several suites within that to lease out to different nonprofits as need arises. I won't accept the amendment, but I do understand the intention behind it. It's not friendly, but you might get a second for it. Council Member Holman: Hearing what you're saying, maybe I could offer an Amendment that would be acceptable to you, and we can move on. To clarify "b," it would be a … Mayor Scharff: Wait. Are you withdrawing your Amendment? Council Member Holman: If he would accept this, I think I would. Mayor Scharff: Offer your Amendment, but it's not really a negotiation. Council Member Holman: It was after hearing him speak and what his intention is that's causing me to say this. "B" would read, if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, either medical office or nonprofit less than 5,000 square feet. That would capture what you just said. Either medical office or nonprofit development less than 5,000 square feet. It's one or the other. As you said, not to bloat a project, to make a project larger. TRANSCRIPT    Page 35 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Council Member Wolbach: The main Motion without the amendment captures that, but it does allow the potential if, say—if you're proposing a development, you could say, "We're going to have 5,000 square feet that's exempt, and 2,500 of it we're going to make for therapists or psychologists or medical, and the other half we're going to make for nonprofits." I can see that actually being an appealing use that would be beneficial to the community. I won't accept the amendment because it's redundant. Council Member Holman: Perhaps this. In "B," if you take the word "and" out, then it also clarifies what your intention is and I would withdraw my amendment. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman, your concern is unclear. Am I correct in believing that your concern is simply that you think it implies that it's additive and you could do 10,000 square feet? Council Member Holman: That's correct. I'm not the only one up here that thinks that. Mayor Scharff: We stated that it's not additive. Medical office and/or nonprofit development less than 5,000 square feet. You want to add something like "for both uses"? Would that … AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion a new Part D “non-profit development less than 3,000 GSF”; and to amend Part B to state “either medical office or non- profit development less than 5,000 GSF” Council Member Wolbach: You could add the word "total" after 5,000. Council Member Wolbach: That's clear to Staff, right? Ms. Gitelman: If I could offer a clarification here. We can certainly change this if it's the Council direction. Currently, the way the program is administered, you could have one exemption or the other. You can have the 2,000-square-foot office or the 5,000-square-foot medical office. You can't combine them. With the way you're writing this, that would remain the case. You could have 2,000 square feet of office and 5,000 square feet made up of either medical or nonprofit or a combination of both of them. Council Member Wolbach: Thank you for the clarification. Forgive me, colleagues and public, for misrepresenting. I misunderstood that. I'm fine with that clarification, and I'm fine with, just to be extra clear for colleagues, adding the word, if Vice Mayor Kniss will accept it, "total" after 5,000 in the motion. TRANSCRIPT    Page 36 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Ms. Gitelman: Mr. Mayor, if I … Council Member Holman: If you do that, then I'd withdraw the amendment. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER Ms. Gitelman: Mr. Mayor, if I could ask for one more clarification. Currently it reads nonprofit development. I was hoping that we could say "nonprofit office development" because the ordinance is really about office uses. Nonprofits have a wide variety of … Council Member Wolbach: That's fine. Let's add that. I think we were just pulling the language from the Staff recommendation. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Holman, for seeking clarification. Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: It's been a while since Council Member Fine started. I just wanted to clarify when we talk about size. This is net new square feet, so you could demolish a medical building that was 15,000 square feet and make it 20,000 square feet? In terms of using these exemptions, we haven't really seen much use of this ordinance in the last 2 years, so I don't think we have data points. I'm a little bit concerned about the comment about how we define a nonprofit. In our zoning, medical is defined. We want to support small nonprofits, but there are huge, big money nonprofits. More the issue of you develop a building and you say you have a nonprofit tenant, and then they move out, what happens? I wondered if you'd be open to—I'd like to hear if Staff has other ideas— saying "medical office and/or deed restricted nonprofit office development" or something to ensure it's actually being used for a nonprofit. Council Member Wolbach: I'd probably be comfortable with it. All of this is going to come back to us; we're just giving direction for Staff to investigate and draft something. I'll look to Council Member Kniss and see if she has any opposition to that. I'd be okay with changing that. Vice Mayor Kniss: I don't think it changes it substantially. Mayor Scharff: Staff, you're comfortable with that? Council Member Wolbach: Just like with the prior amendment offered by Council Member Holman, after the discussion I'm fine with that. Council Member DuBois: Thank you. Mayor Scharff: If we could vote on the board. That passes unanimously. TRANSCRIPT    Page 37 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Mayor Scharff: Now, we're at "E," which is the process for reviewing projects. We have three choices: continue the current competitive process; use a first-come-first-serve process, which is the Staff recommendation; or consider some other alternative or modified process. Vice Mayor Kniss. Vice Mayor Kniss: I'm going to make the Motion for Number 2. Just saying in advance that fair is fair. When you look at our current process, where we have a competitive process, the words we've usually used are a "beauty contest." I've given up over the years that I've served of trying to decide whether a building is attractive or unattractive. I swear, to somebody it's going to be absolutely gorgeous, and to somebody else it is going to be an unattractive elephant. For me, the fairest way to go about this, instead of somebody trying to decide which is the more beautiful building, is to do it on a first-come-first-serve basis. As I recall, we haven't had to do this because we haven't had enough projects in the pipeline. We don't know how a beauty contest would work. This is a fairer way to go. As I've read about it, other cities who have—I should have waited for a second. I apologize. Mayor Scharff: Do we have a second for … Cory, did you second it? No. Council Member Fine: I'll second. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Fine. MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to direct Staff to include in the replacement Ordinance a first-come first-served process for reviewing projects subject to the Annual Limit. Vice Mayor Kniss: Was that a second? Mayor Scharff: Yes. Vice Mayor Kniss: I can continue. Other cities that have come up against this have ended up dropping their beauty contest. I know it was appealing to us initially. We thought of it as a—I don't know. Maybe we'd put together some sort of three-person committee that would decide whether or not it met the beauty contest rules and could they pass the ballet or whatever it was that they had to pass to qualify. This is easy, fair. First- come-first-serve really works. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Fine. Council Member Fine: Thank you. I agree with what Vice Mayor Kniss said about the fact that no one, especially not us, is a good judge of buildings for TRANSCRIPT    Page 38 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  this entire community. More importantly, there are other things here. Currently, the qualification process does include things like housing contribution, transportation impact. Those are important for us to consider in terms of a new building project or development in this City. I don't believe this ordinance is the right place to do them. Instead of valuing these different buildings within this ordinance on their housing contributions or their transportation contributions, we should be looking at those more holistically at a City level. We should be looking at things like a housing overlay or figuring out is the TMA working for the City, where is it, where is it not working, and how do we reinforce that. To do that, I do believe it is more "fair" to have a first-come-first-serve process. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: I'd like to make a Substitute Motion, that we continue the current competitive process. Council Member Filseth: Second. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to direct Staff to continue the current competitive process for reviewing projects subject to the Annual Limit. Mayor Scharff: Would you like to speak to your Motion? Council Member DuBois: Yeah. I really think we're mischaracterizing it to say we're going to have a three-person panel of judges. I don't think that was the process at all. Staff can correct me if I'm wrong. Vice Mayor Kniss: I don't know if we even had a process. Council Member DuBois: We defined a set of scoring metrics. Calling it a beauty contest also denigrates it. It was really about, in years that we had a huge demand for development, being able to prioritize projects that met our policy objectives as a Council. We assigned points based on sustainability, which I don't understand why we wouldn't support that. We assigned points based on environmental quality, public benefit, the ability to mitigate any impacts to the neighborhood. There are a lot of cities that do this. Mountain View does it quite well. It only applies in those years where you have a lot of development. To me, this idea of performance metrics and having a competition in a year where you have a lot of development makes a lot of sense. Those metrics are important to us. If we have first-come- first-serve in those peak years, Council is giving up the ability to encourage the policies that we want to see implemented. Giving points for the inclusion of mixed-use with housing is a good lever for us. We have enormous TRANSCRIPT    Page 39 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  housing pressures. I feel like we're completely diluting this ordinance where we're not going to get what we intended, which was to incentivize moving from office construction to housing construction. The overall purpose was not just single occupancy trips or parking. It was really about job growth and the impacts on the City. These metrics were designed to measure that and incentivize projects. By removing that, we're completely diluting the purpose of this ordinance. I would just strongly—I'd love to hear my colleagues' comments on this, but I'd really urge you guys to consider what we're left with if we take this out. Mayor Scharff: It already has a second from Council Member Filseth, I believe. Council Member Filseth: I pretty much concur with what the maker of the Motion just said. The performance metrics idea is a good idea. We haven't had any—it's been 18 months or something like that. We haven't really had enough time to see how it really works. We haven't had a year in which we had a lot more projects coming in than we could afford. I think it's premature to eliminate it after whatever it's been. On the discussion of fairness, the net-net today is—the producers of office developments don't pay the entire social cost of those. One of the ways to look at the scoring ordinance is that by producing higher quality projects, which is a good idea and premature to eliminate, we can reduce that gap a little bit. In terms of fair, who are we talking about being fair to? The current system is unfair to residents, and it's unfair to residents to dilute this ordinance after however long we've had it, less than 2 years. The Substitute Motion is the way to go. Mayor Scharff: I'm going to speak to this briefly too. First of all, it's a bit of hyperbole to say that we're diluting this ordinance dramatically. The ordinance is pretty much staying the way it is. The purpose of the ordinance is to meter the pace of growth. Whether or not we have a beauty contest or not has no effect on any of that. No one's come forward into the beauty contest. Part of that is because it is unfair, the ordinance. Staff recognizes that this is not a good process. That's why in their Staff Report it says Staff recommends the first-come-first-serve process. When you ask people in business what do they want most from a city, from their government, what they want most is certainty. It's hard to invest millions of dollars, go through a lengthy EIR process, and then have something as vague as the beauty contest. This is probably the most pernicious part of this ordinance. This is the part that investors and developers and residents really have problems with. When you say it's unfair to residents … Council Member Filseth: Residents don't have problems with it. TRANSCRIPT    Page 40 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  Mayor Scharff: Sure they do. What residents also want is some certainty in the process. What we don't really want this to be is a political favoritism, choice where you don't know where it's going to go, where it depends on who's making the decision. When it comes to Council, you want some certainty. That doesn't get you there. When I look at most of the new buildings Downtown, most of them are an improvement over what's there. Yes, I have my pet peeves about some of the architecture, but we have an Architectural Review Board. I may not agree with the choices the Architectural Review Board makes, but I have no understanding of why, if we have this beauty contest, we will get better architecture. I don't believe we will. I don't quite see how that could change at all. We have incredibly strong green building ordinances and sustainability measures. If we want to continue to push on those, which we should, we should apply those to all buildings, which we continue to do. I don't think this helps residents in any way frankly, to keep this beauty contest in here. It creates all sorts of uncertainties, which is what our residents don't want. In fact, if anything it feels a bit like a PC process when we go through it. That's really what our residents were complaining about. What I've heard a lot of people on this Council say is we should have rules, and the rules should be followed, and we should have certainty in those rules. What this does is create a whole sense of uncertainty that hangs around this process. Not to mention the whole March thing. I went with extending the ordinance frankly, but I did ask myself the question—right now, you're stuck with a March date where we collect the stuff without moving forward. That also slows down the process in a way that was unnecessary when we know that we're not going to have more than 50,000 square feet this year. What this does is create delay and uncertainty, which are the two biggest things that create unfairness in the process. I am not going to support the Substitute Motion. Council Member Kou. Council Member Kou: I actually think that calling it a beauty contest is rather insulting. What we have right now, to continue the current process, provides for the performance measures. Staff has really put together and thought out very carefully what their criteria are. It's on Packet Page 38, and it has the review criteria and scoring. It has everything laid out. Staff, is this process given to the applicant to have them understand that this is the method that we'll be scoring when they go through this process? Ms. Campbell: This is something that's available to the public to review. The applicants would review this when they're putting their application together. Council Member Kou: It's not really sprung on the applicant. It's there for them to understand that this is what we're looking for in performance TRANSCRIPT    Page 41 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  criteria to ensure that we have buildings that will fit into the community. Further, residents would like to know what to expect, as you say. Also, they would like to see less exceptions and variances, if anything, or using DEEs and so forth. That would expedite the process for the applicant too. There is a thought-out process for all of this already. I will be supporting the Substitute Motion. Mayor Scharff: Vice Mayor Kniss. Vice Mayor Kniss: Tom, I appreciate what you have said. I really do understand it. It's too bad we haven't had to use this process at all yet, which we haven't. I don't think we have. It looks very objective but, when we get into, we're going to find it's somewhat subjective. Certainly "c," which is the design, is once again—I'm on the same page, looking at design, which is "c" under Number 2. That once again gets into that area that I hope ARB has really weighed in on. Environmental quality, we absolutely demand that. I don't think that's a choice any more. Public benefit, I'd have to suggest that what the Mayor said was pretty straightforward. It does sound a little like an old PC, heading us down a bumpy road again. I am delighted that this is actually put in here, but I still don't see this as being an easy process to complete and one where you could come up with a numeric answer. I am continuing to support my own Motion. Thanks, Tom, for bringing that up. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: We're maybe not looking at this in the right framework. It's been referred to a few times as a beauty contest. That's absolutely a misnomer. If you look at the things that are on the list, either on Packet Page 16 or on Packet Page 38, it's not that. It's what project contributes most to the community and which project least negatively affects the community. That's what the criteria are, that are listed. I wish we had had a project to review at this point in time. Until we do use this, we won't know how it works. I wish we could finally get over a hurdle. With all due respect, it's like we have a pretty darned good Architectural Review Board. Until we can get over the hurdle of thinking of design criteria as being 100- percent subjective, we're not ever going to get anywhere with delivering better projects to this community, either in selecting who our ARB members are or if a project comes to the Council on appeal, looking at a project in preliminary screening, whatever. Compatibility is not just picking straws out of the air. There are specific, professional criteria that determine that. They are the charge of the ARB, our Planning Staff, and the Council. That's just one element of this. The impacts and the uses have great potential for adding very positively to the community. These criteria encourage the TRANSCRIPT    Page 42 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  applicant, an applicant, a developer to come forward with their best effort, not trying to get in under a deadline but to bring forward their best effort. I would suggest that—I ended up voting for it—I can't remember for sure—the 1-year carryover. It makes this criteria even more important because it means we might have a larger project that goes over the 50,000-square- foot limit. If we're looking at a larger project, it makes these criteria so very, very important to the community, to the public. Before you vote on this substitute motion or make up your mind to vote for the original motion, think about what kinds of comments we hear from the public, what do they like and not like about our existing development. I dare say that these criteria address many of the objections that we hear from the community over and over and over again. I argue for your support for the Substitute Motion. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: First, I want to say this is a really good conversation. As with the prior items where we had controversy, people can really vote their conscience on this one and go either way. I'll be supporting the main motion, not the substitute. To share my reasons why, Council Member DuBois' points are well taken, so I would like to address them. He asked what are our thoughts on why we want to make this change, why we want to review the design criteria. I will not use the term beauty contest; I will refer to it as design criteria. I appreciate that. The review criteria or evaluation criteria are well intentioned. They're about as good as they could get. That's why I'm not going to support tweaking them. They're pretty good. The public benefit one bothers me. The biggest one that's central is not a criteria issue but the process issue. If you look at Packet Page 38, Page 5 of 3.C, Item 4 at the end, the City Council may accept the Director's recommendation—that's the Planning Director—or modify it based on its independent review of the criteria and shall determine which eligible applications will be approved, approved with modifications or denied, etc. That leaves a lot of leeway, whether you want to call it objective or subjective. It does leave a lot of leeway for this body to make determinations. Maybe we'll make good decisions; maybe we won't. We all have a great deal of confidence in our own ability to judge according to those criteria. To be honest, I'm not sure how much confidence I have in this body, based on who knows what the future makeup will be, to apply that review criteria and scoring in a fair way. To address the question of fairness that Council Member Filseth raised, it is important to be clear that the role of government in a constitutional democracy is not merely to be fair to the majority, but to be fair as the rule of law applies to all, even those we may have a bias against. It's important that our laws, our rules are fair. Just to address that question of why we use the word fair even if we're TRANSCRIPT    Page 43 of 85  City Council Meeting  Transcript:  9/5/17  talking about a process for a group that we're not necessarily big fans of. We may agree that we're not big fans of them. We do have to have a fair process. That's a rule I will always try and apply. I hope we will all try and apply it no matter what topic we're talking about. If I had confidence that this body would be capable of doing this fairly and doing this well in the future, I'd feel more comfortable with it. Secondly, the right place to pursue reducing impacts, the right place to pursue design, environmental quality, etc. are, as others have mentioned, in other ordinances. We do a pretty darned good job of that. I would like to see us continue to improve upon those. I'd like to see us continue to improve our ARB and its processes and its criteria that it uses. I'd like to see us continue to improve and push the State and the country forward on our green building codes. The impacts, the design, the environmental quality are really important things, absolutely, but that's not what this ordinance is supposed to be about. I don't think government regulations should be broader or more complex than they need to be to get the job done. Lastly, Staff recommended the original motion, not the substitute. Because of my low confidence in this body's capabilities to be fair. Secondly because these things can and should be addressed other places. Third, because of the Staff recommendation, I will be supporting the main motion, not the substitute. Again, people can vote their conscience, and I'll respect them for that. Mayor Scharff: Let's vote on the Substitute Motion first. The Substitute Motion fails on a 5-4 vote with Council Members DuBois, Kou, Filseth, and Holman voting yes. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou yes Mayor Scharff: Still seeing no lights, let's vote on the main Motion. That passes on a 5-4 vote with Council Members Wolbach, Kniss, Scharff, Tanaka, and Fine voting yes. MOTION PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou no Mayor Scharff: Does that conclude the item? Council Member Filseth: (inaudible) Mayor Scharff: I was looking to see if we had any lights. Vice Mayor Kniss: That concludes the item. Mayor Scharff: I just wanted to make sure there was no one who wanted to say something further. Can we take a 5-minute break? _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Meeting Minutes 2 March 29, 2017 3 Excerpt 4 5 6 7 Study Session 8 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 9 3. Discussion and Comments for City Council Consideration Regarding Development of 10 an Ordinance to Perpetuate an Annual Limit on Office/R&D Development Following 11 Expiration of Interim Ordinance #5357 Restricting Such Land Uses in Certain Parts of 12 the City to 50,000 Square Feet per Year. Environmental Analysis: This Discussion is 13 not a Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For More 14 Information, Please Contact Clare Campbell at clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: To bring to order this meeting again and begin with Agenda Item 3. Staff would 17 you kick us off? 18 19 Commissioner Lauing: Chair can I just ask a procedural question? 20 21 Chair Alcheck: Yes (interrupted) 22 23 Commissioner Lauing: This is obviously characterized as a study session not an action item. 24 25 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: That's correct. 1 2 Commissioner Lauing: Right, but I know that Council has already opined because they were 3 asked at the January 30th Council meeting to give their opinions on precisely this issue along 4 with a number of other large ones. So for us to come up with discussions that are just… our 5 only action item tonight is to come up with comments that are going to just be sent over to 6 Council. Wouldn’t it be more productive if we had a session, a subsequent sessions that 7 actually analyzed this issue in light of the Council direction apropos of Chair [Note-Vice-Chair] 8 Waldfogel’s comment in the last item so that we could maybe wrestle with this and come up 9 with a recommendation if that's something the Council has an interest in or we do? Rather 10 than just discuss it and ask questions and just send over 30 random comments that may be not 11 be pertinent or that they're interested. So I'm not saying that there aren't questions that we 12 could ask about what's in your staff report, but it doesn't seem productive if we aren’t going to 13 get into a situation where we're going to recommend something. I don’t know if other 14 colleagues have comments on that, but... 15 16 Chair Alcheck: That's an interesting question. My perspective here… what I would like to do is I 17 would like to give staff the opportunity to present and 18 19 Commissioner Lauing: Certainly, certainly. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: I appreciate the sense that there's not really a defined objective here. And that 2 there's a lot of unknowns, but I let's follow protocol and then we why don’t you circle back to 3 this concept in our first round of comments. 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: Sure, no I look forward to that (interrupted) 6 7 Chair Alcheck: [Unintelligible] we can kind of determine to what extent that might be an 8 appropriate. And we don't have to go through it for two hours. You'll have a chance I think to 9 speak in the first half an hour and then we can kind of figure out (interrupted) 10 11 Commissioner Lauing: That was part of my point is I don't think we need to discuss this 12 necessarily for two hours if we're going to come back with an action item at some later point 13 and we don't need to go on for two hours because we don't know what Council concluded at 14 the end of January because we didn't get a separate staff report on that. 15 16 Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director: Maybe I can offer just a little (interrupted) 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Why don’t you? Yeah, would you? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Gitelman: Context on that. So the only question that the Council really weighed in on at 1 that meeting in January was whether they wanted to perpetuate an annual limit on office 2 Research and Development (R&D) and they said they did want to. They want a permanent 3 ordinance to replace the temporary ordinance and that's really all they decided. Each of the 4 Council Members offered their own thoughts, individual thoughts about what it would look like. 5 Some of them said oh, we don't want the beauty contest anymore, we want first come first 6 serve. Some said oh, we want the allocate, unused allocation to roll over, but there was no 7 action or unanimity about those characteristics of what the program would look like. And so 8 we thought before going back to Council we would seek the Commission's insights and input if 9 you have any. Again, we're not asking you to take any action, but we're interested in your 10 individual thoughts about how this program could be structured in the future and we will come 11 back to you for a more organized and formal action item at some point in the future. So I mean 12 I appreciate you might want to not want to spend a ton of time tonight, but I thought we 13 thought your comments would be useful (interrupted) 14 15 Chair Alcheck: And allow me just to also sort of suggest that our obligation, our I think chief 16 responsibility here is to review items and provide feedback on Council directed matters, but 17 also a lot of times we can provide insight and shape the discussions the Council has without 18 necessarily their direction and input in advance. And so I would encourage us to look at this 19 particular opportunity as a many of you were not on this Commission when we first dealt with 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. this cap. And it was a very interesting dialogue that we had last time we reviewed it. Here it's 1 coming to us again and there is a real opportunity here to figure out whether there are ways to 2 improve upon it. And I think we're all in a position to provide some insight and I think that that 3 will help this moving forward. And I know it's going to come back to us, but at least this way we 4 have an opportunity to see some of the questions that we might have get answered in that 5 follow up session, so. 6 7 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah and I apologize there's one thing I forgot about the Council's dialogue. So 8 they talked about the their desire to adopt a permanent ordinance. They also talked about 9 their preference that the annual limit area that's included be extended from what it is currently 10 to the whole City minus the Research Park. So they actually I think they did include that in their 11 Motion, but they didn’t include anything else about the process or exemptions or any of the 12 other details that will have to be figured out during the rewrite. And we'd love your thoughts 13 on those things so that maybe we can get let staff go with the presentation and then hear from 14 you on those elements. 15 16 Clare Campbell, Senior Planner: Ok great, thank you; Clare Campbell, Senior Planner. So tonight 17 we're going to be talking about the Annual Office Limit Ordinance. The purpose of our 18 discussion today is we're going to provide you with an update of the office development since 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the implementation of the interim ordinance and ask for feedback and comments for 1 developing the permanent ordinance. 2 3 So the interim ordinance was adopted in September 2015 and the intent was to meter the pace 4 of development in the City regarding office and R&D development. The City had been 5 experiencing substantial development of office and R&D projects and concerns and had 6 concerns about the rapid growth and how that may exacerbate traffic congestion and parking 7 conditions existing already in the City as well as some negative impacts potentially on existing 8 neighborhood character. So the ordinance established a 50,000 square foot limit for new office 9 R&D development and it focused its focus on the Downtown California Ave area and the El 10 Camino corridor. And the ordinance is due to expire in eight months on November 26, 2017. 11 So here's a map showing where the area applies, the area that the ordinance applies to. So we 12 have a section here in the Downtown including South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I along the El 13 Camino corridor and this whole section here is called the California Avenue area. 14 15 So give you a brief summary of our ordinance. So basically it applies to five different land uses. 16 We have R&D, administrative office services, general business office, medical office, and 17 professional office. We have included some exempt projects from the ordinance and they're 18 basically small projects that are less than 2,000 square feet (sf), small medical office that's 19 5,000 sf or less, and self-mitigating projects. So those are projects where the housing 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. component provides more housing than the number of workers that would be employed by the 1 project. And also self-mitigating projects include projects that have a really strong robust 2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that helps to improve the parking and 3 traffic conditions. 4 5 So the ordinance also established selection criteria for evaluating projects and we have five of 6 them here. So basically the first one is impacts and does the project include appropriate 7 development density, does it avoid or mitigate traffic and parking impacts. Design, does the 8 quality and is the design quality compatible, is the design quality good, and is it compatible with 9 the surrounding neighborhoods? The environmental quality, does the project have impacts as 10 determined by our California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation? And for public 11 benefits does the project include meaningful public benefits that the City can utilize and 12 appreciate? And the uses, so does the project include a mix of uses with substantial housing, 13 ground floor retail, and cultural amenities? 14 15 So to facilitate the implementation of the ordinance some administrative guidelines were 16 developed and this document basically reflects the ordinance requirements, but it includes 17 some more detailed procedures to streamline the implementation of the ordinance. It includes 18 the scoring process and the evaluation scorecard and that scorecard reflects the points which 19 we use for the ranking. The guidelines also reiterate the review timelines for projects and that 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. projects approved cannot roll over their square footage to another project. If you don't use it 1 you're going to lose it basically. 2 3 All right so I'm going to walk you through the basic steps of the existing process. So the first 4 thing is that it is based on a fiscal year and the projects as you know are submitted year round 5 for us to take a look at. During the time from July 1st through March 31st no qualifying projects 6 can be approved by the Planning Department. So the first step is we need to establish a project 7 list. So on March 31st staff will determine which office and R&D projects are ready for final 8 action. And ready means that they've been deemed complete, that we've done all the 9 environmental review, and all the boards and commissions except for Council have to have 10 done their review and all the required reviews have been completed and the project is ready 11 for action. The second step once we have our project list is to determine whether or not the 12 office square footage goes over the 50,000 sf. So on the bottom line here if the projects do not 13 go over 50,000 sf then those projects would get approved following the standard review 14 process. So for the other scenario if the projects do exceed the 50,000 sf those projects are 15 forwarded to Council for their review and determination of the project. So that kind of that 16 affects our first beauty contest review, but both scenarios must be completed by June 30th of 17 the year. So then after June 30th passes we start the process over again for the following fiscal 18 year. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ok so in the two years that we've had our ordinance we have not yet had the opportunity to try 1 out or test our process that we've put in place. So we actually don't have any real information 2 to report back to you on the effectiveness of our process. So since the implementation of the 3 ordinance though there appears to be some conscious efforts made by some of the applicants 4 to avoid triggering this ordinance and what they've done is they've either just taken office out 5 of their project or they've reduced the amount of office in the project so it becomes exempt 6 and doesn't trigger any additional review. 7 8 So here I'm going to go over our pending projects. So this is a list of all the projects that we 9 have currently on file that are open that have some office component to it. So the first two 10 3045 Park and 411 Lytton these two projects count towards the 50,000 square foot limit. The 11 next project 4115 El Camino I've included this even though it's a preliminary architectural 12 review just to illustrate what I had just mentioned that some projects really keep the square 13 footage down so they become exempt from the process. So this project is only proposing to 14 have 2,000 sf so then it's not part of the projects that we would review as part of the annual 15 office limit. The next one down is 3251 Hanover and this project is located in the Research Park 16 so the office limit doesn't apply for this particular project for two reasons: it's outside the 17 boundary that we've defined under the ordinance and it's also replacement square footage so it 18 doesn't account it doesn't count towards the limit. So the next one is 380 Cambridge and again 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. this one is exempt because it's less than 2,000 feet and 2600 El Camino is also exempt because 1 the 62,000 sf is replacement square footage. 2 3 So here you'll kind of get a sense that the total the figure at the very bottom here the 17,260 4 that's the number the square footage of projects that would count towards the 50,000 sf for 5 this ordinance. So even though you see several projects on our lists those would be the only 6 two that would count towards this ordinance. So for next year if it were just these two projects 7 that we're showing here to consider on March 31st then we would have left over square 8 footage. In this case it's approximately 32,000 thousand sf so that 32,000 sf can be approved 9 for other types of office projects long as it's done before June 30th. And again that's the hard 10 cutoff date for the process to start over again for the next fiscal year. 11 12 Ok so tonight we're looking to get your comments and basically they can be on any aspect of 13 this ordinance. It can be focused on the boundary, the square footage cap amount, the 14 selection process, first come first serve versus the competition, and the review process, but any 15 other part of this can be reviewed. We just know that we need to move forward with some 16 type of annual office limit. So next steps staff will continue with our public outreach and we 17 will forward your comments to Council for feedback and discussion and later of course this year 18 we’ll return with our draft ordinance for you to review. And the ordinance expires on 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. November 26th though Council action is needed by early October. And that concludes staff’s 1 presentation. Thank you. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Thank you, staff. Ok I’d like to begin this oh, wait, we have a speaker card. Just a 4 minute, sorry. 5 6 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: [Unintelligible]. 7 8 Simon Cintz: Ok, thank you. My name is Simon Cintz. I'm actually going to decline to speak 9 now because I think what was pointed out before this is a study session and I would sort of also 10 be interested in seeing how you folks look at things and whatever and will reserve my 11 comments for later. So I've never been in here when I've been the only speaker in, but so but I 12 do want to thank the person from the City handling this for reaching out to the business 13 community. I did get an email. That was really important that we knew this was going on 14 although I didn't really quite understand what the details of it and look forward to hearing what 15 your comments are. Thank you. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Ok. Yeah just so we're clear the next opportunity for public comment would be 18 the next time we see this item, not later tonight. Just in case. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice-Chair Waldfogel: [Unintelligible-off mic]. 1 2 Chair Alcheck: I suspect it is. Ok, so what I'd like to do right now is I hope we're comfortable 3 with 10 minutes? I’ll give everybody sort of hopefully it's less than 10 minutes and I'd like to 4 start at the other end of the table for this item so Commissioner Rosenblum will you kick us off? 5 Questions/comments. 6 7 Commissioner Rosenblum: Sure. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: However you’d like to start. 10 11 Commissioner Rosenblum: First just want start with a question. So you made the statement 12 that regardless of what the discussion or comment is tonight we have to move forward with 13 some kind of office cap. And I want to just ask you why is that? My understanding was this 14 ordinance expired either two years from adoption or upon adoption of the new Comprehensive 15 Plan whichever is sooner. So we’re coming against the two year mark which is the sooner. 16 There's nothing in those says we have to have an office cap so I'm curious about that comment. 17 You seem to want us to continue this policy maybe with modifications, but I wonder if you 18 could respond to that. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Gitelman: Sure, I'd be happy to respond to that. When the Council had that meeting on 1 January 30th where it was talking about the Comp Plan one of the questions we asked in the 2 context of a discussion of land use policies was whether they wanted to include a policy about 3 metering the pace of growth or a program related to the office cap. And the response was well 4 we don't really need to put this in the Comp Plan, but we would like to update the ordinance 5 about the annual limit. Maybe make some changes to it, but we would like to continue that. 6 So as you point out the current ordinance expires either in two years or when the Comp Plan is 7 adopted whichever is sooner. There is a potential that we could simply just extend it if we need 8 more time until the Comp Plan is adopted, but we are thinking based on the Council's direction 9 on January 30th that they will want a replacement ordinance and so we thought it was wise to 10 start thinking about what that might look like and this was an obvious first stop to get some 11 input. 12 13 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, great. In that case I have two parts to this. So the first is should 14 this ordinance be continued with improvements or should we allow it to expire. And regardless 15 of which way we think as a body I think that we do have to answer Council’s question which are 16 what are the parts of this ordinance that you’d want to adjust. But I think it's worth weighing in 17 to them is it a good thing to have a cap and as you know from the Our Palo Alto Summit there 18 were three different modes considered. There was metering, there was a hard cap, and there 19 was mitigations. And our Council ultimately went with a cap. But I think it's worth our body as 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. an independent advisory body first weighing in do we think that's the right mechanism, but 1 second to answer their direct question which is let's if we assume they do want to continue 2 with this current mode what are the changes that one would make. 3 4 So in terms of using my slot I would say first in terms of whether or not this is the right 5 mechanism I would argue it's never been the right mechanism. Now we're two years into it and 6 we know it literally didn't do anything. We've never hit the 50,000 number. So it took a lot of 7 staff time, it took like four Council meetings, it took three Planning and Transportation 8 Commission (PTC) meetings, it's taken all of our time quite a lot, but it hasn't actually done 9 anything. And all that time I think could have been more valuable if we had worked on 10 mitigation measures and had really focused on making a Transportation Management 11 Association (TMA) more effective. Now part of the reason why I never thought this would, was 12 the right approach was it's kind of the horse is already out the barn. A lot of the problems 13 we’re trying to address have to do with buildings that were constructed even before the 14 Ninety's which were under parked. So working on new construction doesn't really address this 15 problem of traffic and indeed again despite put this measure into place I don't think that there's 16 been a corresponding reduction in traffic that we would have wanted from this measure. 17 18 So also finally when we did the Our Palo Alto Summit I think there were like 300 people in 19 attendance seventy percent of people in attendance voted to work on mitigations and only five 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. percent for hard caps. So even the people that were most involved always said this was the 1 wrong approach. So I would argue pretty strongly that people that citizens involved the process 2 said it was the wrong approach, the analysis would say it was the wrong approach, and 3 hindsight suggested it didn’t do anything. So it feels like a weird thing to continue. 4 5 Having said that if we are going to continue my observations based on the way we have it are 6 the following. I think the first big problem with it that Stanford Research Park (SRP) is left out 7 of it. I think SRP is the biggest source of traffic through our community. And the reason is they 8 have most of the large employers and it's very difficult for them to have any kind of transit 9 program. And so I think it's something like 73 percent of SRP employees still take Single 10 Occupancy Vehicles (SOV) whereas the Downtown number I think was something like 57 11 percent and Stanford's number is something like 47 percent. And so whereas in other places 12 they've been able to get people out of their cars SRP has not and they have the big employers. 13 And so it's a bit of an odd thing that we have this program that exempts them from this. If 14 there's any place we want people to build it's actually here where people don't drive their car 15 as much it's not there, but this program as you saw in your pipeline the largest building I think 16 was 110,000 sf is not part of this because it's built there. And I think it would be much more 17 attractive now to build there because you’re not counting the cap. You don't have to go 18 through this beauty contest, etcetera. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Second, I do think there should be some mechanism for banking unused credit so if we build 1 very little this year, if there's a downturn and we stop building that upon recovery there is cap 2 relief. Now in terms of how many years the credit can be built based on the analysis that you 3 gave us it takes anywhere between two years and five years after recession for us to start 4 building again. But any rate Council can come up with their own mechanism, but I would be in 5 favor of somehow banking these credits on a go forward basis. 6 7 And my final comment around the ordinance itself is that some of the exceptions seem 8 counterintuitive. So there's a real kind of love small projects meaning they don't count against 9 the cap. So offices below 2,000 sf, medical offices below 5,000 sf and again if part of our point 10 is that we're trying to cap office space to mitigate traffic impact which was I think one the 11 drivers of this having multiple small places just seems like it's counter to the goal of trying to 12 get a more efficient use of space. Meaning given X number of employees you want to have 13 fewer cars and if you're subdividing into multiple small places it doesn't seem like there's a 14 public interest in that or at least it's counter to the goal of the whole ordinance. So that's on 15 the general ordinance. 16 17 The last couple comments I'll make are on the beauty contest itself. I love the idea of beauty 18 contest so if we’re going to have this again I hate this whole, this whole ordinance, but if we're 19 going to have it I do like the that if we do have it that the beauty contest idea is kind of cool. I 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. like that then Mayor Burt had proposed it. I’ve always been in the context of this a fan. The 1 heuristic is a bit odd. It's very skewed towards penalizing density. So there's 110 points I think 2 that are allocated of which about 50 are related to density or impacts of density and 20 are 3 related to use. So do you have housing or do you have mixed use, etcetera of which 10 of the 4 points are those that feature housing and I would personally think that in terms of if we're 5 using beauty as one of our criteria one of our great community needs is more housing. And so 6 the beauty contest is heavily skewed towards weight sort of density verses use. And so my 7 personal preference would be to skew towards those who are helping us to relieve our housing 8 crisis. 9 10 So that's the sum of my comments. So just to sum it up first I'd say I would love this body to say 11 that this was the wrong mechanism we should go for a mitigations focus mechanism, A. But if 12 we're to go with this mechanism then my three big points are put SRP in as part of it, consider 13 banking credits, the exceptions we should not be skewed towards small. If anything if you're 14 trying to traffic mitigation normally having some kind of scale is better so you shouldn’t give 15 incentives to go smaller. And then finally the beauty contest should be skewed towards things 16 that we want and so I think housing is a big one. That’s it for me. 17 18 Commissioner Summa: So I actually don't think this is a bad ordinance I guess. I also I just don't 19 like the word beauty contest. I wish we could call it something else because it's kind of 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. offensive. But anyway I was going to ask couple questions and then I’ll make some comments. 1 Have we had any self-mitigating projects? No and ok, and then so couple of things. 2 3 There was a lot of talk at the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). I think this should be citywide 4 for sure and there was a lot of talk on the CAC about including the Research Park, but maybe 5 allowing the Research Park to roll over square footages annually that they don't use and the 6 idea was that because there's such bigger buildings there. So I would say I favor a citywide 7 program and I would encourage the Council to look at a way to include the Research Park that 8 lets the Research Park be the Research Park, but also we'd have more control. I have a concern 9 about replacement square footage not being included and maybe this is a legal issue it can't be. 10 And one of the reasons is because replacement square footage is often replaced with a much 11 denser use which just has more people and more cars, more SOV trips, more greenhouse gas 12 emissions. So I would look at a way of maybe if it's legal including replacement square footage 13 with some, in some way. 14 15 And I was especially struck in the findings by Finding B about the huge, huge increase in Class B 16 office space. And I know we have a lot of concern about displacing those kind of uses so and 17 they've actually increased exponentially in price much more than Class A office rates. So that 18 was interesting to me. So I oh, and then I would like to give… I think it's interesting that this 19 ordinance not only… well, it did two things. It wanted to meter the pace of growth, office and 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. R&D growth, but it also wanted to give the Council a chance to look at projects and prioritize 1 them through the non-beauty contest, the merit contest, and it didn't do that. And I think that 2 was because 50,000 is too high a threshold. I think if we lower the threshold and I'm not sure 3 what the magic number would be we could get more projects into that prioritization and which 4 would also have the benefit of including projects that were better for the public. It may be 5 prioritized housing also so let's see… Yeah, so those are my comments for now. 6 7 Commissioner Monk: Ok so in looking at what the rationale was for creating the ordinance and 8 looking at the outcome of the ordinance I'm wondering why we would need to continue it 9 based on what the findings were on Page 33 and also in your presentation you were [sitting] 10 that in the end of the very first paragraph of the top of Page 33 that the projects really haven't 11 come forward and you believe that a lot of it was to avoid the potential of additional rigors 12 required by the interim [AOL] ordinance. I don't know if you wanted to provide any additional 13 input on that or feedback as to why the ordinance has reduced the amount of applications for 14 new office projects. 15 16 Ms. Campbell: I think basically applicants don't want to have to go through this additional 17 review. And it's very unsure for them to kind of go through this process and it can be very I’m 18 not finding the right word, but basically I think what's happening is that our review process is 19 well known. And it takes a lot to get through even a normal application process, but when we 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. have to add this additional contest for this evaluation I think it makes it much more 1 unpredictable for applicants to project forward and to invest time and energy to do something 2 here in Palo Alto. So I think that could definitely be something that adds to why we're not 3 seeing anything happen. 4 5 Commissioner Monk: Ok, so instead of it actually pacing growth it sounds like it's halting 6 growth. Does that sound correct under what we've seen in the last two years? 7 8 Ms. Campbell: I think honestly that the two year timeline might be a little bit short for us to 9 kind of make a full determination on that. 10 11 Commissioner Monk: Ok. 12 13 Ms. Campbell: Certainly just based on the numbers that are coming in for applications we 14 definitely have seen a decline in applications. 15 16 Commissioner Monk: And has this ordinance had a benefit on traffic in any way? Have we seen 17 any changes in traffic as a result of this ordinance? 18 19 Ms. Campbell: Not that I'm aware of. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Monk: OK. What was the reason to not have a rollover? And if you don't want 2 to answer that I would just say that I would support a rollover with some sort of oversight or 3 timeline for it to expire. 4 5 Ms. Gitelman: I think originally the discussion was about a mechanism to meter the pace of 6 growth and so in the original deliberations I think the Council felt like if the allocation could 7 rollover then you're really not having that effect of metering growth because you'll continue to 8 have the spikes. The leftover allocation will all be used in a future year. What they were trying 9 to solve for was the spikes where some years you’d have a ton of growth and in the next year 10 you wouldn’t. 11 12 Commissioner Monk: Ok. Well I see that on Page 31 that you talk about the six years where 13 there was in excess of the 50,000 sf, but you didn't really detail how far the growth was beyond 14 the 50,000. So it's hard to know what those spikes were from just my reading of what was 15 presented in the packet. Is that information that you have or? 16 17 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah. We have a different data set that's a little harder to use that goes back 18 much further and it's we can represent it and really show the spikes. There are years in which 19 we see a lot of growth and we were trying to solve for that problem. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Ms. Campbell: And just to add to that in the staff report from September 21, 2015, when the 2 ordinance was adopted there was a hand out that was provided as an attachment that basically 3 showed all of the development over the last 15 years and it illustrated what the square footage 4 numbers were. 5 6 Commissioner Monk: That’s on this? 7 8 Ms. Campbell: No, in the September 21, 2015, Council report. 9 10 Commissioner Monk: Ok. And when it I just have one more question and then I have a few 11 comments on to the ordinance itself. When it comes to mixed use does the square footage 12 that could be occupied by a retail or residential use go towards that cap or is that kept outside? 13 14 Ms. Campbell: No. It’s just office only. 15 16 Commissioner Monk: Ok. So I wanted to look at Page 36 where it's talking about any 17 contradictions between our Comp Plan and the ordinance in the event that the ordinance does 18 remain in effect I would advise to look at the last sentence and consider making a change that 19 the policy most instead of the policy most restrictive of growth shall apply that that be further 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. qualified to the policy most restrictive of R&D growth or office growth or whatever people 1 agree with on the Council. Or it could say the policy least restrictive of housing shall apply. 2 That would be a recommendation that I would make because it's broad the way it's written by 3 just saying growth in general. 4 5 And then in regards to the self-mitigating projects I did send an email to Jonathan Lait on this 6 one because I was curious about whether or not any of those had been accomplished and you 7 confirmed now that it would had not. Has there are any examples ever of this ever being 8 attainable any point in time? On that's on Subparagraph C on Page 37. 9 10 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I'm not aware of any although we have had inquiries from developers who 11 are interested in this concept. So I think people saw this in the ordinance and thought it was an 12 intriguing idea. So I've had at least one local developer talk to me about how they might go 13 about something like this. 14 15 Commissioner Monk: Ok so what I would love to see is some follow up from the developer and 16 whomever to find out what we can do to make it more attainable and encourage development 17 because I think that self-mitigating projects that would increase our housing stock are in 18 compliance with the City's objectives of increasing housing. So I don't know if it's putting a 19 percentage in there rather than saying that it has to be more than the number of workers or 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. something like that. So I would like to see that looked at in a deeper level. And I think that's 1 my last comment. Thank you. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Ok before I dive in I there’s this allegory I'm sure most of you are familiar with. 4 This individual, two individuals come into work and one is always too hot, they open the 5 window and the other individual is annoyed because they're freezing and so they close the 6 window and it's the same thing every hour one opens it, one closes it, one opens it and finally 7 someone’s like hey why don’t you put a sweater on? And then I and don't sit next to the 8 window and I'll sit next to the you know. That's not really how it goes, but you understand, you 9 appreciate my sentiment. 10 11 So I just want to acknowledge Commissioner Rosenblum’s comments. There is I always find 12 your analysis just to be incredibly valuable and it's not hard to understand how this ordinance 13 came about. It is it seems to just reek of a response that is politically driven. The overwhelming 14 growth that we experienced in Downtown the just the… we got the residential parking permit 15 program, we have so many, we have the difficulty these neighborhoods have in absorbing the 16 amount of office growth it's such a foreseeable sort of result, right? But we're capping office 17 growth that's it. Whether or not that actually achieves the goal of reducing so many of the 18 issues that the Downtown is suffering from is the sort of question that I think Commissioner 19 Rosenblum is highlighting tonight which is that at our at the Our Palo Alto event individuals 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. spent a great deal of time sort of evaluating options and the community felt that there were 1 some options that were more valuable than a cap. We currently have a cap in an area where 2 we the impacts are more mitigated than in areas that we don't have a cap which suggests a just 3 incredible iron, not I don't know if irony is the right, inconsistency with what are we actually 4 trying to do and what are we doing. 5 6 The best I should say the best or the only part of this ordinance that I like is that we get to re-7 review it because it's an interim. And I want to just commend staff and Council for operating in 8 that framework. There's a real there's a wonderful reason for using interim ordinances like this 9 one. It gives us a chance to look at it a couple years later. I felt the same way about the 10 ordinance we reviewed a couple weeks ago. I feel the same way about this one. I would never 11 encourage as a Planning Commissioner this City Council to adopt this ordinance in any other 12 way but in an interim fashion. So even if they proceeded to adopt this ordinance I would 13 encourage them to do it for either another two years or if they were uncomfortable with that 14 limit for four years, but to not necessarily adopt it permanently because I personally share the 15 view that this is not the correct solution for the subset of problems that we are attempting to 16 address. 17 18 I have heard really what I would describe as strong arguments for why a beauty contest despite 19 potentially the challenge of that name being divisive, but I've heard positive arguments for it, 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. arguments that I can relate to. Why not have a process in this City where we have architects 1 compete for projects that really demonstrate just tremendous architecture. The problem is is 2 in who's eyes, right? Who makes that determination, right? And then we created a framework 3 and my main concern is that the application of the point system or the decision… I don't I would 4 suggest that I'm uncomfortable with the decision of or the judges of the beauty contest to be in 5 a political body. I'd be much more comfortable if the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for 6 example evaluated the judged the beauty contest then the City Council because it depends how 7 you feel your Council member reflects whether you think they're pro-growth or you think 8 they’re a residentialist or however you feel they situate if you believe that they can be bought 9 or influenced in a political way then there's so there's it’s such a the system is sort of fraught 10 with potential problems. 11 12 So despite this beautiful, this I shouldn’t say beautiful. Despite this aspirational goal of having a 13 contest a system that pushes the best to the top I think the biggest problem with that is we’re 14 familiar with the saying you get what you pay for? I believe that applies in architecture and in 15 development. So if you're going to spend a significant amount of money developing a concept 16 for development and applying only to be slotted in with maybe 10 other projects that may or 17 may not that may exceed the thing and then to have absolutely no certainty as to whether or 18 not your project it we are discouraging individuals in my opinion from investing the sort of 19 money that would produce the best result because that's too much risk. Now if the goal of the 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. ordinance is to do just that we actually want to discourage developers from developing in this 1 town commercial office space not just literally with a cap, but also by creating a process that 2 involves so much ambiguity and uncertainty that developers won't even want to participate 3 then this is a great tool for that. And so from that perspective if that's the goal City Council's 4 within its right to make that determination and whether or not that's the right goal is a… but if 5 the goal is to discourage development because of ambiguity then I believe that this is the right 6 tool. So if that's the goal this is the right tool. I think that the lack the reason why we have not 7 hit the cap is not simply because there's been a slowdown in office. I believe it's already having 8 an impact of discouraging applications in office space because of this I don't want to say 9 unintended outcome because it could be the intended consequence. 10 11 I we just had a discussion about the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and I wondered during 12 that discussion whether the office cap affects the economic analysis that was inherent to the 13 scenarios. And I guess there was a part of me that believed that our when we adopted this 14 interim ordinance that the Comp Plan would actually come before it expired and somehow it 15 would incorporate policies and programs that furthered the stated goals of this interim 16 ordinance. So I guess one of my suggestions to Council would be to evaluate whether or not 17 they really would like to accomplish their objectives whatever they may be in an ordinance like 18 this one or whether there is a way for us to incorporate them within the Comp Plan that 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. prioritize… I'm not sure. If they if the Council decides to expand this ordinance citywide I think 1 that there should be a consideration for rollover. 2 3 And finally if the Council determines that they want to continue this ordinance permanently I 4 would suggest my recommendation to Council would be to eliminate the beauty contest 5 entirely. Right now we choose March 31st as just an arbitrary date. So any project that got 6 let's say the office cap had been hit and just at the right amount that didn't trigger a beauty 7 contest because it was only 50,000 projects, but it got hit in May of 2017 then any applicant 8 who is ready to go after May 2017 would in essence have to wait till March 31st. They could be 9 they could have spent two years getting through the process on May 1st, but they have to wait 10 till March 31st to participate in this process. And I would suggest that a much more investor 11 friendly or I should say maybe the right term is developer friendly way to do this would be to 12 treat it as a first come first serve process. Which is to say that no that you can't start you can’t 13 we can't green light your project on May 1st because you're in a calendar year where we've 14 exceeded the number of you exceed the cap, but come January one you're permitted to begin 15 your project. 16 17 And you may find that between May 1st of 2017 and November 1st of 2017 we already hit our 18 50,000. And so the projects that are slated for 2018 are all determined in those months 19 between May and November of the previous year, but at least there would be some ladder. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. And if you were a if you were out in the community and you were and attempting to gauge 1 whether a development project was worth your time you could very easily say ok wow, there 2 are 11 projects before me. The earliest I could possibly go would be 2019. That is the sort of 3 certainty that would encourage developers to go ok if I can get in line for 2019 then I'm going to 4 hire the best architect I have. I'm going to get the best design I can. I'm going to throw 5 everything at this because I get one shot possibly every four years and I want it to be brilliant. 6 And I think that will encourage that sort of dollars that will create the sort of results that we 7 want. 8 9 So again I would be in favor of eliminating the beauty contest and I'm not suggesting that we 10 don't create a framework that encourages the goals of the beauty contest, but we do in a way 11 that doesn't discourage investment. And I don't know what that is yet, but I know that this 12 doesn't accomplish that goal for me. Ok, that's those are my comments. 13 14 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: My turn? Thank you. I've heard some speculation both among my 15 colleagues and from staff that the cap produced office growth within the boundaries, but do 16 you have any interpretation on why we haven't seen significant net new office group growth 17 outside of the cap boundaries? 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Gitelman: We don't really and I'm not sure as Clare indicated that we've had a long enough 1 test of this idea to really draw conclusions and I think we need to study not just our local 2 conditions, but regionally what's happening in the office market. I don't know whether we 3 adopted this ordinance just at the time that something was changing here. I think we should 4 hesitate to draw (interrupted) 5 6 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, so yes so it's pretty speculative about cause and effect and I get that. 7 Also there's some discussion about traffic and was there ever any intent that the office cap 8 would remediate existing traffic? 9 10 Ms. Gitelman: No. I think the Council was very clear when this was adopted that they were 11 attempting to address the pace of change in neighborhoods that people felt were changing 12 most rapidly. 13 14 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok, so we wouldn't expect to see traffic reductions over the last couple 15 years as an effect of this interim ordinance? 16 17 Ms. Gitelman: That’s right. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Yeah, ok. Great. Yeah and I mean I've seen some speculation that it's 1 really higher office density that's above the code assumptions of four or five employees per 2 thousand that's really a causal factor. I’m going to… we all had anecdotes about this, but this 3 probably isn't the right place to share them. 4 5 So I support extending the cap at 50,000 feet. I feel like a bit of an odd man out here, but I 6 don't support extending it outside the current boundaries. I think that using mitigations in the 7 Research Park versus metering in the boundary districts gives us a really interesting local A/B 8 test on what works. And I think that both these approaches are valid and having a local running 9 a local experiment maybe making a decision in the future that one of the other is preferable 10 may be an interesting exercise. I don't support rollover although I could be persuaded that 11 rollover I mean well, if we only keep it within the current districts I don't support rollover. And 12 rollover isn't an issue outside of the current districts or in the office park. 13 14 I do support continuing I'll call the bake off process because I like the idea of the City having a 15 seat at the table to get good projects. I appreciate my colleague Commissioner [Note-Chair] 16 Alcheck’s comments about great architecture. I haven't seen great architecture regularly 17 committed in areas outside of the development cap boundaries. And I'm not too worried that a 18 bake off process will deter good design. I mean I think that we need to be cognizant that we 19 have to design processes as if our objective is to improve the quality of design we have to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. design processes that will achieve that, but I'm not I'm not concerned that a the City having a 1 seat at the table will deter good design and will deter good projects. 2 3 Commissioner Lauing: I want to go back to that top of Page 33 again. Again if we’re going to 4 make decisions we like to have data and I think you're saying that we haven't had much time to 5 get much data in fact none so it's not indicative of anything really. So I just think we should all 6 kind of understand that. Were there any even anecdotal developers saying I don't like this 7 ordinance so I'm not going to submit or is this just sort of a presumption or speculation? 8 9 Ms. Campbell: I think so the project list that I gave you some examples we definitely saw some 10 projects where the applicant has reduced the amount of square footage and we had some 11 projects that were already like under review when we first adopted the ordinance where 12 they've actually they had planned for office and they've switched it to retail or yeah and 13 housing, yeah. So we’ve… but again we haven't really seen this enough to really make any real 14 determinations on a trend. 15 16 Commissioner Lauing: That latter example might turn out to be a plus. 17 18 Ms. Campbell: Yeah. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: If they’re putting in more housing and retail than office. 1 2 Ms. Gitelman: That’s right. I mean there’s only a few examples, but we have had projects that 3 were in our shop for review as office projects the cap was adopted and they have since changed 4 to be residential projects. 5 6 Commissioner Lauing: Ok. So I also appreciate Commissioner [Note-Vice-Chair] Waldfogel’s 7 point that there's not been sizable building anywhere, but there certainly hasn't been in the 8 restricted area so to that extent it's been “successful” given very little data. I also wanted to 9 get clarification on what is the real assignment here? The words you put in the front here is 10 that they made a Motion, Council made a Motion that directed staff to bring forward a 11 permanent annual limit ordinance and it’s separate from the Comprehensive Plan update. Is 12 that separate in terms of timing? Because they want to get it done quickly by this date even if 13 the Comprehensive Plan is not available? I mean it certainly isn’t going to be in contradiction to 14 the Comprehensive Plan so I’m still looking kind of for clarity of what the assignment is. 15 16 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah I think they're there they meant separate to mean separate. That we were 17 asking them at that time whether they wanted to include a policy framework in the Comp Plan 18 for an annual process like this and they said no. We I mean obviously we don't want to 19 contradiction, but what we’d prefer is to refine this through an ordinance process. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Lauing: Instead of a policy in the Comp Plan? 2 3 Ms. Gitelman: That's right. 4 5 Commissioner Lauing: Ok, that's helpful. Yeah I think we could use some more debate on if we 6 expanded to certain areas would they be just the office park or would they be other areas and I 7 don't know that tonight’s the night for that. So that's all. 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. So I believe definitely that the room proper place for this 10 policy it's not a separate regulation, but the Comp Plan. And I'm not sure what's the 11 mechanism here is this is it either a representative of this Commission should speak at the 12 meeting of the City Council or maybe we could ask the staff or the Director to recommend if 13 that would be agreement maybe among ourselves to put a recommend the Council to 14 reconsider their suggestion and include this regulation in the Comprehensive Plan. And there is 15 a the reason is that a Comprehensive Plan should address housing and office balance. And then 16 specifically here there is no greater topic then that. This policy addresses this balance in a 17 significant way. So excluding that from the Comprehensive Plan somehow negates the purpose 18 of the Comprehensive Plan. So it's not very logical for me for this reason I would like somebody 19 there to from this Commission to recommend the Council to reconsider or maybe staff would. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 In terms of how this should work so 50,000 annual limit cap it is the number that doesn't 2 explain itself. It's like with any other numbers that we reviewed here at this Commission and 3 the impact fees was recent topic. We are given the numbers and we need to somehow which 4 are artificial they mean nothing. They are prescriptive as opposed to performance based and in 5 this way they just don't work with variety of other regulations. They are just pretty much 6 artificially created. We know why because at the time when this regulation was created there 7 was a pressure to limit the office cap and then for the time being it worked so there was 8 nothing wrong with this interim regulation that Council passed at this time, but now we are 9 approaching discussions on the Comprehensive Plan so maybe we can just approach it 10 differently. 11 12 I think that the way to approach it is to define and to commit to a ratio which you already 13 presented to us when we were talking about EIR. Where we have jobs, employed, and resident 14 ratio of 3.3 and then this cap may be expressed with this ratio. We can maybe in the 15 Comprehensive Plan we can have a statement that this City that the vision of the City is to drive 16 towards a narrower or is to minimize the today’s differentiator or the ratio that is pretty much 17 high, it's very high maybe the objective of the City is to drive toward lowering this ratio. And 18 inclusion of the statement in the Comprehensive Plan would address this issue totally. We can 19 also assume that there is a variance that from the ratio, let's say 3.0. There can be variance 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. annual or quarterly variance of 0.05 which it would be a standard deviation from the mean and 1 then as long as the City marches with the development between those two parameters we’re 2 fine. So then we would not need to have any other review, any beauty contests or any other 3 first come first serve as long as there is a metric and this metric should be naturally maintained. 4 5 This discussion would resolve itself, but of course we would have to have understanding and 6 agreement and then maybe the agreement that City Council is trying to express with the recent 7 discussion maybe it’s the target ratio that we should have. And then if we have it as I said, 8 right, we would not need to have this cap. As I said 50,000 doesn't say anything to me? I was 9 trying just to do some numbers and then excluding I think we have 3.2 million sf which are in 10 the Comprehensive Plan out of this 1.3 million were already taken by the Stanford Medical 11 Center which leaves us with 1.7 so give or take. Now there is a question how much of this 1.7 12 will go to the toward the outside areas, how much will be left for the City and that remainder 13 should be pretty much allocated towards the 2030 horizon of the Comprehensive Plan. So if 14 you do if you discount the growth of the area outside of the… if you discount the growth of the 15 areas like SRP you are left with some office area that may be allocated toward the City if you 16 drive from 3.2 million sf number. Other ways to approach it as I said is to just pretty much look 17 around this ratio. One method or the other method it just give us the greater direction and we 18 don't need this regulation. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. But however my colleagues talk about this that we need to answer this question what if we're 1 left out with this specific regulation so for this reason my propensity would be like this: I don't 2 believe that there should be any beauty contests because I don't really think that it serves 3 anything. I'm sure that it would not self-serve better architecture just knowing that higher is 4 the that higher burden of the regulation equates to a mediocre architecture. So architects are 5 busy with resolving the issues around the zoning and regulations and they don't design and we 6 know that. So I would be against the beauty contest. 7 8 I think that it should be on the first come and first serve basis and it should be within the rolling 9 timelines. So as long as there is a cap for the 12 months and if that amount of the area is 10 unattained, the office area designated within this 12 months it should keep, going. Of course 11 there is a question that you may ask what's going to happen if there's a large project on the 12 horizon that will automatically go above this cap,? So then of course we would have to just kick 13 in some other review, but then as long as this is below that cap that pretty much the 14 applications should be rolling in. That's how I think about this. I agree with colleagues of mine 15 that suggested to include all the office area regardless so I think that the medical offices all 16 should be included and then all the areas below 2,000 should be included in this cap as well. So 17 those are my comments. Thank you. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: Ok Commissioners our the light system does not really work right now because it 1 doesn't reflect the news, the addition of our newest member so just signal me if you have some 2 additional comments. Any order. 3 4 Commissioner Lauing: I was just going to circle back to what I said before we had this 5 conversation and I think the conversation illustrates there are a lot of different opinions. 6 There's a lot of different levels of knowledge about this because of when it came up. And if 7 Council wants us to do something besides just tweak this ordinance which we certainly can do 8 then I think it needs more study. Perhaps even a two or three person ad hoc committee in 9 advance of the next meeting with people that we know have maybe a different opinions so we 10 get something done so we could reestablish the Waldfogel/Rosenblum couple there and see 11 what comes out of that one because there's various opinions that I heard up here so. 12 13 Chair Alcheck: It's an interesting idea. I think to what extent we can affect... So your tasked 14 with the process of bringing an ordinance to City, to the to us and then from us it will go to City 15 Council. So this is in essence like a study session before the development of an ordinance 16 which we’ll review and then either recommend or revise or theoretically recommend revisions 17 because it we may not see it twice on its way to Council, right? 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Gitelman: Right. I think we'd like an opportunity to think a little further about the process 1 after tonight's discussion. We did hear a wide variety of opinions if we had to develop an 2 ordinance based on tonight's discussion I think we would be hard pressed to do that. So I think 3 we want to regroup a little and maybe we'll sit down with the City Manager and talk about his 4 impressions of how this fits into the Council work program this year. We do always have the 5 option with this ordinance to just extended it or let it lapse for a little while we take a little bit 6 longer. So I guess what I'm asking is let's if you have any further thoughts tonight that be 7 terrific and why don't you let us assimilate the input we've received and come back to you with 8 some suggestions and an updated process. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Ok, I'm going to make a comment and I hope that it serves as a quick example of 11 I think some things that might work out for us. So I'm going to let all of you have an 12 opportunity, but I want to just make a quick comment. I think this will help further the process. 13 14 I think when we come back or in the in your next step this self-mitigating projects exclusion I 15 think it would be very helpful if you could demonstrate how this would be achieved in a 5,000 16 or 10,000 square foot office project. How many housing units would have to be built based on 17 our assumptions for how 10,000 sf of office space is allocated or 5,000 sf or actually 2,100 sf 18 because one of my concerns is that this paragraph about self-mitigating projects is completely 19 unattainable. There is no 2,500 square foot office that within five stories could house enough 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. people to mitigate the jobs/housing imbalance. And so one of the questions that I would like to 1 explore down the road is ok well what how much, how what is reasonable? Like a half, could a 2 project a accommodate half of the housing units versus jobs that it creates? Because otherwise 3 this paragraph is essentially a impossible feat, right? 4 5 That's basically one of the questions that I have. So when, if we explore this further and if the 6 next version of this or what however this works I'd love to sort of figure out whether there is 7 such a thing as a self-mitigating project. Alright, so that's one example of potentially something 8 that could inform this discussion later and I encourage all of you if you have questions since this 9 is a very open ended return to go ahead. Ok. Commissioner Summa. 10 11 Commissioner Summa: So I mean it may not be a perfect ordinance I agree with that, but it 12 seems like it's been successful in doing something that was sort of a consensus moment on the 13 Comp Plan group and that is incentivizing mixed-use that's retail and housing. To respond to 14 people's concerns about housing and also address the jobs/housing imbalance or at least not 15 making it work. So I see it as having been sort of successful understanding that there's only 16 been a very short time to look at it. And yeah I think it’d be very interesting to have an example 17 of the self-mitigating project. Thanks. 18 19 Chair Alcheck: Commissioner Rosenblum. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Rosenblum: Thanks. So a couple reactions; first, I don't think this is that well 2 suited for like an additional subcommittee and the reason is the history of it which is that 3 Council had many sessions on this. We had many sessions on this. And part of the reason I 4 think you sense passion at least on my part for this is that I never actually thought this would do 5 very much. My opposition to it is that it keeps us from doing things I think will do quite a lot. 6 And just to say well this at least accomplished something I don't think, I think the best thing you 7 can say is we don't know. There just hasn't been enough time or who knows, but after hours 8 and hours and hours of Council debate and hours and hours and hours of PTC debate and public 9 input I think we could have done something much better. 10 11 And specifically I think what the community has always been interested in is the impacts of 12 office, the impacts of people. So where do people put their cars? How do they get into our 13 community? And there are effective ways of dealing with that. And so when I suggest to let 14 this ordinance lapse what I really mean is to choose one of the other options that were on the 15 table. So one of the options on the table was to work extensively on mitigation, so cap is not a 16 mitigation. To work on in our community that would be getting a funding source for our TMA, 17 getting proper leadership in place, getting proper oversight. So when I think of those however 18 many hours nine hours of Council meetings on this and all the hours that we had on this and 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. could have been spent productively trying to find a funding source for example for TMA I find it 1 kind of tragic. 2 3 But if we are going to do this again the thing that to me is one of the biggest examples of why 4 this is strange is that the place that leads to a lot of our traffic which is SRP in terms of the total 5 square footage of office and the fact that 73 percent of them drive alone. This is a known issue. 6 This has been an issue for years. They've been working on trying to get people out of their cars. 7 It's a difficult place for people not to drive to. That we've actually just flipped everything on its 8 head. The places where people are reducing their reliance on cars we've put a cap in place. In 9 a place where people can’t get out of their cars we’ve put no cap in place. It’s just the whole 10 thing is very strange. 11 12 And so when I suggest we let this lapse I'm not saying not replace it with anything I'm saying to 13 work on something that we would feel good about which is a program to really reduce the 14 reliance on cars in the Downtown area where that ability exists. And to me again it would be 15 it’s the Stanford plan. Stanford did an amazing job over the last decade plus of getting people 16 out of their cars, but it’s by focusing on this and not just putting a cap in place. I think if they 17 had just put a cap in place and not focused on all the programming they did around the shuttle 18 program, the go pass program, the education program, the marking program. That took work 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. and they focused on that. If they had just said a cap will accomplish what we want I think they 1 would have been short changed. 2 3 So anyway so my suggestion given this process would be I think additional like subcommittees 4 in this case is probably not the best use, but I do hope that we at least come up with some 5 consensus. I have my view. I may be outvoted on this one. I expect I would be, but at least I 6 think we should give guidance to Council that we support this ordinance being extended or we 7 don't we think it should be replaced with something different. And then hopefully some 8 consolidation of our feedback if we decide that this ordinance is really well actually, either way; 9 even if we say we should replace it with something they can just ignore us. And then I think we 10 still owe them some pointers on things that we think should be changed. 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: So a process wise would you say bring it back in a month and have 13 another debate and then vote on something? 14 15 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, something like that. I mean I may be strong of will on this 16 one, but I'd be willing to do that right now. But I'm also happy to bring it back if people feel like 17 they need more time to digest and again this is maybe something where this all came during my 18 tenure and so maybe I feel like (interrupted) 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: You’ve got a lot of history. 1 2 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. So it's possible that given the composition of this Commission 3 if people want more time to absorb and talk to folks then I'm open to that. But yeah I think we 4 should we owe Council some kind of direction and answer on this. 5 6 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah unless they've already told us otherwise. I'd like to see the exact 7 Motion actually if we could get that sent to us. 8 9 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah we'd be happy to do that and one of the things that we are talking about is 10 whether we should go to the Council and have this same kind of open ended discussion. We 11 really just scratched the surface because there were so many other issues on the agenda on 12 that June 30 that January 30th date. And so we're kind of figuring out can we fit a study session 13 into the Council schedule, should we just draft an ordinance and bring it to you and bring it to 14 them, we really have to strategize after hearing the wide variety of thoughts expressed this 15 evening. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Look, I’ll say this: new, old, it doesn't really make a difference. I think everybody 18 on this Commission is sensitive to the impacts that have occurred as a result of the growth that 19 I think most of us have seen as residents. And I don't want to take away here to be Commission 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. split on whether to continue to develop office or not. I think or I at least I speak for myself 1 when I say this is not I'm not opposed to the office cap because I would like more office in our 2 City. I and one of the I think most valuable comments you're making is how much more time 3 are we going to spend on a potentially flawed approach? That is something that we need to 4 address. We can have another two meetings and debate office caps and I think one question is 5 are we continuing to waste time and I think there maybe even Commissioners that don't think 6 we would be and there's a lot of uncertainty involved here. So I don't know that we're ready to 7 even make a Motion to… I don't know. I shouldn’t say make a, I don't know that what we... 8 please. Why don’t? 9 10 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: So Commissioner Rosenbaum raises an interesting point that mitigation is 11 really at the bottom of this is the objective and maybe the way to split the difference is for the 12 time being I really think we need to extend this office cap, but perhaps what we do is we sunset 13 it around demonstrably effective mitigation. That when we show that we have TDM that works 14 or other mitigations that work that we increase the cap or we relieve the restrictions, but I 15 mean for the time being I think this is the best tool that we have in our or the best tool that we 16 have in our tool kit. We don't have reliable funding sources for TMA yet and perhaps that 17 would be an incentive for the private sector to adequately fund TMA. Who knows, you know 18 that's pure speculation, but maybe we come up with some tool like that. I don't know is an 19 interesting? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: I guess my I'm sort of curious to know how you would respond to this exclusion 2 of the SRP. I mean that being potentially the largest generator of the impacts that the TDM 3 measures that you're waiting for would address. So why wouldn't you use the best tool that 4 you have to address an area that is creating the largest problem that you are hoping will be 5 solved? 6 7 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Well I partially because I think that the 73 percent and what is it, 54 8 percent numbers are slightly deceptive. Until we actually look at the occupancy per square foot 9 basically how many trips are generated per square foot of building in those districts. I don't 10 have those numbers, but at least historically the Research Park has had lower occupancy 11 density. So I think that if we knew that we could say something smarter about this. I mean we 12 know that for better for worse we know that Cal Ave. has more trips now than it had some time 13 in the past because we're seeing demand for Residential Preferential Parking (RPP), we're 14 seeing a serious discussion about a new parking ramp. So I mean we know that affects have 15 happened, but I don't know enough to agree or disagree that the Research Park is a bigger 16 causal issue than other districts. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: I just want to follow up, I'm curious. So let's assume for a minute the numbers 19 are the same. Let’s say it was 54 and 54. Still why wouldn't you include that area? What would 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. be the rationale to not… what would how would we encourage TDM measures in that area if 1 there was no cap? Or the development of [unintelligible]. I get (interrupted) 2 3 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Well I’m not sure what you're, are you arguing that the cap should be 4 extended to the Research Park? 5 6 Chair Alcheck: I'm trying to suggest that the exclusion in your mind, in your… you suggested 7 that you want to continue the office cap, but you want to exclude the… its expansion citywide 8 seems inconsistent and I was trying to I was trying to pick your brain as to how that made 9 sense. I appreciate that there's information that you're that you would like to obtain so. 10 11 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Well and I'd like to see mitigations in the Research Park. I mean I'm not 12 saying we shouldn't do anything in the Research Park. I'd like to see mitigations. I'd like to see 13 that perhaps as a local experiment on mitigations versus metering, but that but I'm trying to 14 suggest there may be a middle ground here which is this isn't a calendared interim item this is a 15 this is interim until we show that we can actually achieve what we say we want to achieve. And 16 we just haven't done that yet. So let's show that we can do it and let's create some incentives 17 for them for the private sector to respond. 18 19 Chair Alcheck: Commissioner Rosenblum. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah I guess it’s I think it's all well and good for us to say well it's not 2 ideal, but let's continue and then we also really care about mitigation so hopefully something 3 good happens there. To me it’s exactly the opposite which is what we really should care about 4 is mitigation. This is a program that has been shown to work by our neighbor at Stanford. It's 5 something that we've seen examples on individual building levels. So one building that really 6 struck me was this body presided over a proposal where the proposal was fully parked or they 7 offered Option 2 where they get rid of 10 spaces, but offer Caltrain Go Passes for every person 8 working in the building and it was near the Caltrain Cal Ave. station. And that really struck me. 9 They had something like a 10 percent reduction in number of spaces, but because it cost them 10 $60,000 per space that funded Caltrain passes for everyone. And we considered those two 11 options and one was they’re dramatically different. One you fit ten more cars in the other I 12 forget the number of people it was like 110 people work in the building would all get Go Passes. 13 14 And what I realize is we only have so much time and Council only has so much time and we do 15 what we spend time on and so this particular issue has taken up a lot of time and if we ranked 16 issues that in the last two years have taken Council time this would be a top five item talking 17 office cap, multiple sessions that went on for hours. And so my rejoinder to this is it hasn't 18 really done much. Removing it probably won't do much either. I actually like I said I don't 19 actually think this is that important a measure one way or the other, but I know it takes time 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. and it takes our focus off of what I think is the most important thing which is I think we right 1 now really ineffective TMA at the moment frankly. And I would love to see us and Council start 2 to spend a lot of time understanding why that is and all the different options we could have for 3 funding and staffing that body and doing it well. 4 5 Now the only objection I have to this again is I think it's a really blunt instrument, but at least if 6 we’re going to use the blunt instrument and let's apply it consistently so if we’re going to have 7 a blunt instrument then at least let's apply it to SRP, let's get rid of these exceptions that don't 8 make sense. But I think that we have much better instruments that we should spend our time 9 on. And so that’s it. I just feel sad that we keep discussing this cap which I don't think really 10 does much one way or the other. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Is it, do, is there any baring other comment or go ahead. 13 14 Commissioner Monk: So looking first of all I just want to say that with what Commissioner 15 Rosenblum was saying I do agree that if it's about mitigation then the time should be spent on 16 doing the hard work to figure out how to really reduce the traffic and those things that impact 17 our quality of life. Although Director Gitelman said that this was more about the pace of 18 change and that's why it was enacted. So getting some clarity on that and addressing that 19 specific would be really important. And also looking at what our objective is tonight this is a 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. study session and as you mentioned you did hear of a variety of a range of opinions and I think 1 that is exactly what we were tasked to do tonight and I think we've successfully met our 2 objective for tonight. So I don't know what the additional conversation needs to continue on so 3 I just want to say that I think we've met our objective and I appreciate all of the interesting 4 commentary. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Yeah I agree that I think we met our objective. I wonder if there is a way that I 7 can, we can and I'd love to hear if there is support for this empower staff to bring us an 8 agendized item this summer where we delve into TMA. Or if there is a way for us to begin a 9 discussion about effective TMA solutions that address the challenges that may or may not be 10 effectively addressed by this tool. I think that it would be we've talked about this a lot this 11 notion of proposing an item of interest on the Planning Commission that the staff would help 12 facilitate an opportunity to put it on the agenda. I mean I've had that conversation with 13 Assistant Director Lait a few times. And I don't know that I am following the right protocol 14 here, but I guess my question and I'd love if follow Commission Members feel strongly about 15 this I mean there is maybe an interest here in pursuing that. I'd much rather create a 16 subcommittee to talk about TMA than to talk about this ordinance. And is there a way we can 17 accomplish that goal in this calendar year? 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Gitelman: I think we can find a way to do that. I should mention that we have scheduled a 1 discussion with the City Council on April 11th. So coming up in fact the packet goes out 2 tomorrow on parking management strategies Downtown which does offer some potential for 3 funding the TMA in the long term. And what and our recommendation to the Council on the 4 11th is not to take any action just to receive a study that we've been working on and basically 5 instruct us to go and get some additional input and potentially work with the Commission on a 6 further evolution of kind of an implementation strategy if they're interested in pursuing the 7 recommendations of the study. So I'd encourage you to pay attention to the Council meeting 8 on the 11th. It's a Tuesday meeting rather than a Monday meeting, but that may evolve into a 9 Commission agenda item just like the one you're saying you're suggesting and even if it doesn't 10 we can find a way to bring the TMA related issues back to the Commission this year. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Maybe one of the most constructive thing that we can do at this point would be 13 to encourage staff when they go for that meeting to communicate the passion and interest 14 among Commission Members to explore this and if they're so interested empower us that in 15 our discussion of the cap we had some discussion about delving into this further and if as part 16 of their review they consider that opportunity. Does anybody else have some? Commissioners 17 Summa. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Summa: So I think it would be great to discuss a TMA, but unless TMA gets 1 significant funding that’s it's never going to get off the ground. It's a totally different thing than 2 Stanford’s academic success with reduction of trips because they own all the land. So it's very 3 different Downtown and that's why they have a harder time in the Research Park. Even though 4 they own the land there's these long term lease holders and they can't make all the rules. So I 5 appreciate my colleagues’ passion on the topic of the this item, but I think the fact that there 6 has been so much time spent on it is evidence of the passion on both sides around it. So I 7 would suggest it's perfectly appropriate for us to spend time on it because it just elicits a lot of 8 passionate responses. So yeah let's go for trying to improve the TMA, but we've got to figure 9 out who's going to pay for it because it needs professional people running it in my opinion. 10 Thanks. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Any other comments? Commissioner Gardias. 13 14 Commissioner Gardias: Does the light system work or? 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Not really. 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: I just wanted to make a comment about this what Director Gitelman 19 said. So you said you were wondering how to approach this ordinance with the City Council 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. and some other items. My general thought is like this that Comprehensive Plan that we would 1 be approaching very soon gives us this opportunity to comprehensively review all the 2 ordinances like this one. I think that once we're going to approach summer or the 3 Comprehensive Plan discussion we should just have the laundry list of all the ordinances and 4 then see if they can be incorporated into Comprehensive Plan. Or if a Comprehensive Plan 5 pretty much invalidates them or replaces them in some way. 6 7 Ms. Gitelman: Certainly your review of the Comprehensive Plan is going to be an opportunity 8 for you to review the land use policies that involve growth management strategies and other 9 approaches to growth in the City. And once the Comprehensive Plan is adopted we will have to 10 undertake some changes to our zoning ordinances to implement the new policies in the plan. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Ok I want to make one more suggestion when this does come back to us in 13 whatever form it comes back to us. I think we've talked about this last time I think it would be 14 very instructive if we could review any other American city’s approach to an office cap that 15 potentially involved a beauty or bake sale or whatever you want to call it. I think we talked 16 about this last time and we were does anybody else do this and how are they doing it and how 17 if because we don't really have a lot of data maybe there's a way we can analyze their results. 18 So barring any other comments by Commissioners I think we can sort of complete (interrupted) 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: Do we want to agendize this for the next meeting? 1 2 Chair Alcheck: I don't know that it will be ready in time. 3 4 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah. I think we'd like some time to think about it maybe we prepare an 5 ordinance so you have something to react to, something more concrete, but maybe we have to 6 go to Council first. We just have to give it a little thought, but we'll keep working on this. We 7 do know there is some urgency to this because the expiration date of the current ordinance. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Time is on our side and this is different than the last interim ordinance 10 (interrupted) 11 12 Commissioner Lauing: That’s what I was just going to say. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: We’ve got a few months here. 15 16 Commissioner Lauing: I’m happy to get a little bit more extra time on this one. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Lauing: It would be a great though if we could see the text of the Motion so that 1 we know what the direction is to you guys and effectively to us right now even if we want to 2 push back on that we’d like to know what the status is. Thank you. 3 4 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 5 6 Ms. Gitelman: Well thank you all for the input tonight. It's really helpful. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Yeah this is really very effective. I'd like to close the study session now and move 9 to the approval of the minutes from the March 8th meaning. 10 11 MOTION: There was no Motion. 12 13 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: 3 4 Chair Michael Alcheck 5 Vice Chair Asher Waldfogel 6 Commissioner Przemek Gardias 7 Commissioner Ed Lauing 8 Commissioner Susan Monk 9 Commissioner Eric Rosenblum 10 Commissioner Doria Summa 11 12 Get Informed and Be Engaged! 13 View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. 14 15 Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card 16 located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission 17 Secretary prior to discussion of the item. 18 19 Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be 20 delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 21 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding 22 the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 23 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. 24 25 Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the 26 agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. 27 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 28 It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a 29 manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an 30 appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, 31 or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing 32 ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 33 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. 34