Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-09-26 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 two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: September 26, 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. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 There are no study session items for this meeting. Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. PUBLIC HEARING. 3703-3709 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136]: Recommendation to the City Council on the Adoption of an Ordinance to Apply the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the Site Located at 3703-3709 El Camino Real. Zoning District: CN. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15194. 3. PUBLIC HEARING. The Planning and Transportation Commission Will Consider an Ordinance Amending Various Sections of Title 18 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Related to Development Standards Including Minimum and Maximum Unit Density, Floor Area Ratio, Height, and Open Space; Parking Requirements; Ground– Floor Retail Provisions; the Approval Process, and Other Regulations Governing Residential and Mixed-Use Development; All to Promote Housing Development Opportunities in _______________________ 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 two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Zoning Districts, in Furtherance of Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. CEQA: Determination of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certified and Adopted on November 13, 2017 by Council Resolution No.9720. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4.August 29, 2018 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Agenda Items Adjournment August 29, 2018 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 two minutes or less 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 # 9605) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 9/26/2018 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: Jonathan Lait 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: September 26, 2018 PTC Meeting Schedule and 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 6:00 PM Council Chambers 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 Cancelled 3/14/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/28/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs 4/11/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/25/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Lauing, Riggs 5/09/2018 5/22/2018 6:00 PM 6:00 PM Council Chambers Council Chambers Regular Special Cancelled(Alcheck, Lauing, Monk, Riggs) Alcheck 5/30/2018 6:00PM Council Chambers Regular 6/13/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck, Riggs 6/27/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck 7/11/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 7/25/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Gardias, Riggs 8/08/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 8/29/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/12/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs, Waldfogel 9/26/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/10/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Waldfogel (Tentative) 10/31/2018 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 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 Susan Monk Doria Summa 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 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2018 Tentative Future Agenda September 20, 2018 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics October 10, 2018 • 2018 Comp Plan Implementation/Housing Ordinance • 285 Hamilton Ave-Houzz Roof Deck October 31, 2018 • Cancelled November 14, 2018 • 874 Boyce Road Preliminary Parcel Map • El Camino Real Safety and Connectivity Planning • CEQA Ordinance Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 9659) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 9/26/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: August 29, 2018 Draft Meeting Minutes Title: August 29, 2018 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the August 29, 2018 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meetings were made available to the Commissioners prior to the September 26, 2018 meeting date. The draft PTC minutes can be viewed on line on the City’s website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. Hard copies of the minutes from each of the above referenced meetings will be made available at the PTC meeting being held on September 26, 2018 at Council Chambers at 6pm. Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 9578) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/26/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3705 El Camino Real (Wilton Avenue) Rezoning Title: PUBLIC HEARING. 3703-3709 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136]: Recommendation to the City Council on the Adoption of an Ordinance to Apply the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the Site Located at 3703-3709 El Camino Real. Zoning District: CN. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15194. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Find the rezoning exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Guidelines Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption). 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on the finding that the project is an accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Report Summary The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property from CN Neighborhood Commercial to CN(AH) Neighborhood Commercial with Affordable Housing Combining District. The proposed rezoning is intended to provide the development standards for a 100% affordable multi-family residential project on the site. Background Project Information Owner: Palo Alto Housing Architect: Pyatok Architects Representative: Sheryl Klein, Palo Alto Housing Board Chair Legal Counsel: Not applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Property Information Address: 3703-3709 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 163’ x 98’ (20,150 SF) Housing Inventory Site: Yes Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: No Historic Resource(s): Not a historic resource Existing Improvement(s): Two detached structures; 1-story each; c. 1938 and 1949 Existing Land Use(s): Retail Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Northeast: RM-30 Multi-family Residential (apartments) Northwest: CN Neighborhood Commercial (restaurant) Southeast: CN Neighborhood Commercial (retail) Southwest: CN Neighborhood Commercial (retail) Special Setbacks: Not applicable Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: CN Neighborhood Commercial Comp. Plan Designation: CN Neighborhood Commercial Context-Based Design: Yes Downtown Urban Design: Not applicable SOFA II CAP: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Yes Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: The Council conducted a prescreening of the project at a public hearing on August 28, 2017. Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/60907 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61317 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-136/ The Council approved the AH Combining District at a public hearing on April 9, 2018. Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64347 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=43577.64&BlobID=65350 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-2-3-2-2-2/ PTC: The PTC conducted public hearings on AH Combining District on February 14, 2018 and March 14, 2018. February 14, 2018 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63360 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64590 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-2/ March 14, 2018 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63857 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64589 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-2-2/ HRB: None. ARB: Initial hearing of project scheduled for 10/04/2018 Project Description The applicant seeks to amend the zoning district map (“rezone”) the subject property from the existing CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to CN (AH) (Neighborhood Commercial with Affordable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Housing Combining District). The rezoning would retain the underlying Neighborhood Commercial zoning while adding the recently codified Affordable Housing Combining District regulations to the site. The rezoning has been requested to advance a 65-unit, multi-family residential project in which all of the units would be income restricted. The rezoning application is being processed concurrently with an Architectural Review application. Details of the design of the project, including the massing, neighborhood context, availability of vehicle and bicycle parking, and multi-modal circulation, will be evaluated by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) at an initial hearing on 10/04/2018. Furthermore, the ARB will evaluate whether the project plans, which are provided to the PTC for informational purposes, are in conformance with the Municipal Code, including the AH Combining District (PAMC Section 18.30(J)), as well as the Comprehensive Plan, El Camino Real Guidelines and South El Camino Real Guidelines. The Planning and Transportation Commission’s public hearing in the rezoning process is codified in Section 18.80.070. In summary, the Planning and Transportation Commission’s purview on the project is to make a recommendation on the requested change to the zoning district map based on whether the change would be in accord with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The site is located at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue and contains two mid-century 1-story commercial buildings containing retail establishments, including a stamp and coin shop, a European grocery, a hair salon, and a bridal shop. The site is located on the southern edge of the Ventura neighborhood, and is surrounded by a diverse range of uses, including one and two-story retail buildings and multi-family residential apartments. Reflecting this diversity of uses, the zoning districts in the vicinity of the site are varied, but generally follow a pattern of Neighborhood Commercial Districts fronting El Camino Real abutting Multi- Family Residential districts one block off the corridor. The Multi-Family Districts in the vicinity are long and narrow following the contour of the El Camino Real corridor, and abut Two-Family and Single-Family Residential districts to the northeast. Existing Zoning – CN Neighborhood Commercial 1 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 5 The existing zoning district is CN Neighborhood Commercial is “intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas primarily accommodating retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking, and office uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood, under regulations that will assure maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas”. The district allows for a range of permitted and conditionally permitted commercial uses, as well as residential uses in conjunction with a mixed-use project. The maximum permitted residential density in a mixed use project is 15-20 dwelling units per acre, and up to a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5:1. The CN district does not permit residential-only development. The CN District provides for a maximum building height of 40 feet on El Camino Real, which is reduced to a maximum of 35 feet for portions of a site within 150 feet of a residential zone abutting or located within 50 feet of the site. Proposed Zoning – CN (AH) Neighborhood Commercial with Affordable Housing Combining District The proposed zoning of the site is CN (AH) Neighborhood Commercial with Affordable Housing Combining District. The Affordable Housing Combining District functions as an overlay, and modifies the development standards of the underlying district in a number of ways. Attachment F includes an analysis of how development standards would be modified relative to the base CN zoning district. In summary, the AH Combining District generally permits and conditionally permits the underlying uses in the base zone, with the substantive change of allowing 100% affordable housing projects. Section 18.30(J) of the Municipal Code (setting forth the AH Combining District) “is intended to promote the development of 100% affordable rental housing projects located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or one-quarter mile of a high-quality transit corridor [. . .] by providing flexible development standards and modifying the uses allowed in the commercial districts and subdistricts”. The AH combining district eliminates the residential density standard, and allows for an increase in Gross Floor Area up to 2.0:1 FAR (Residential only projects), or 2.4:1 FAR (mixed use projects). Additionally, the AH district allows for a height increase up to 50 feet, with a 35 foot residential transitional height limit for portions of a site within 50 feet of a residentially zoned property. AH Combining District Applicability As outlined above, the AH combining district is intended only for application on sites with proximity to public transit. Section 21155 of the Public Resource Code provides a definition of a “high quality transit corridor”, which is incorporated by reference into the district language: “[…] a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.” VTA provides regular, fixed route bus service along much of the El Camino Real corridor in the City of Palo Alto. During peak commute hours, as well as throughout most of the day, the 22 Bus Route provides 15 minute headways with service between Palo Alto Transit Center and San Antonio Caltrain (and beyond). The subject site is located directly across El Camino Real from the south-bound 22 Bus stop, and one block from the north-bound 22 bus stop (El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue). As a result, the site meets the intended transit proximity qualification. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 In addition to the transit proximity qualification outlined above, the AH district may only be combined with commercial districts (CD, CN, CS, and CC). Generally, these districts include areas in downtown, California Avenue, Stanford Shopping Center, and large sections of the El Camino Real corridor. As a result, the site meets the requirement that a site be zoned as a commercial district. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan2 The Comprehensive Plan provides a number of policies and programs that are relevant to the project and the effort to provide more flexible development standards for affordable housing projects, as well as housing projects (both affordable and market-rate) located near public transit. A number of those policies are included in Attachment D. On balance, the Comprehensive Plan provides strong support for the construction of affordable housing, and provides many policies indicating that flexible development standards should be considered in the review of such projects. The Housing Element supports the creation of an Affordable Housing overlay with the purpose of helping the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements. 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 statutorily exempt from CEQA per Guidelines section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption). 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 Daily Post on September 14, 2018, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on September 12, 2018 which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission 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 PTC3 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, AICP, Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2679 Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Draft 3703-3709 El Camino Real Rezoning Ordinance (DOCX) • Attachment B: Applicant Project Description (PDF) • Attachment C: Existing Zoning Map - 3703-3709 El Camino Real (PDF) • Attachment D: Comp Plan Policies (DOCX) • Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) Not Yet Adopted Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to for 3703-3705 and 3707- 3709 El Camino Real to add the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the Existing Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows: (A) The Planning and Transportation Commission ("Commission"), after a duly noticed public hearing on September 26, 2018, recommended that the City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("Council") rezone the subject site (3703-3705 and 3707-3709 El Camino Real) from CN Neighborhood Commercial to CN (AH) Neighborhood Commercial with Affordable Housing Combining District. (B) After reviewing the facts presented at a public hearing, including public testimony and reports and recommendations from the Director of Planning and Community Environment, the Commission recommended that the subject site meets the commercial zoning and transit proximity requirements of the Affordable Housing Combining District and that rezoning to the CN (AH) designation would be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. (C) The Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on ______, 2018, found the project exempt from environmental review, and after reviewing all relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter, found that the public interest, health, and welfare require an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 2. Amendment of Zoning Map Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended by applying the Affordable Housing (AH) 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 3703-3705 and 3707-3709 El Camino Real. SECTION 3. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The rezoning is exempt from CEQA per Section 15194 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts affordable housing projects meeting certain criteria. Not Yet Adopted SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage and adoption. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment 725 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel. 650 321 9709 Fax. 650 321 4341 pah.community BUILDING STORIES THAT MATTER April 19, 2018 Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Wilton Development Proposal & Planning Application Dear Hillary, Following the City Council’s recent adoption of the Affordable Housing Combining District Ordinance, we present to you our planning application for the development of 61 units at 3707-3079 El Camion Real in the City of Palo Alto. Our proposal includes the development of 61 units of 100% affordable housing with 58 studios and 3 one-bedroom apartments (including one manager’s unit). The new units will provide housing for households earning up to 30 - 60% (possibly up to 80% with 59% averaging) of the Area Median Income with a percentage of the population targeting households with special needs. Additionally, we propose to set aside 15 units for adults with developmental disabilities. As you know, PAH has a long history and a proven track record for providing award- winning, affordable housing in Silicon Valley. We have recently expanded into the City of Mountain View and San Mateo County, but look forward to binging forward another project in the City of Palo Alto. PAH brings exceptional experience in building affordable, urban in-fill housing and transit-oriented development with high-quality development standards. Our in-house Property Management and Resident Services staff provide tremendous support for our residents, which always creates successful properties that are proven models for affordable housing communities. Please feel free to reach me at 650-321-9709, ext. 1300 or cgonzalez@pah.community with any questions. We look forward to the potential opportunity to partner with the City again to continue to tackle the affordable housing crisis in Silicon Valley. Sincerely, Candice Gonzalez President & CEO Wilton Court Narrative Palo Alto Housing (PAH) proposes to redevelop two parcels (20,150 sf total) along El Camino Real into a mixed-use development. The project would include 61 units of badly needed affordable housing and would take advantage of tax credit and city affordable housing funds. The development would be located at 3703-3705 and 3707-3709 El Camino Real, and would also be bound by Wilton Avenue, a 20’ wide alley and interior lot lines / adjacent commercial uses. The proposed 100% affordable housing development would be a three-story wood frame (Type V-A) structure on a two-story semi-depressed concrete structure (type I-A) podium, and would consist of 61 apartments (58 studios and 3 one- bedroom units) including one manager’s unit. Ground floor uses would be for the residential community above including management/leasing offices, mailroom, bike storage, computer lab and building-associated services spaces. Additionally on the ground floor would be a 50 space residential parking garage. The podium level would contain a community room, gym, and laundry facilities. The residential floors as proposed would be organized in an L-shaped double loaded corridor, parallel to El Camino Real with a large opening to breakdown the mass along Wilton Avenue, and would allow additional sunlight into the podium courtyard. The rear yard garden would contribute to storm-water management and allow the potential to save the larger trees on this portion of the site. The roof would have Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic panels for improved building energy performance. The project requests the application of the Affordable Housing Combining District Ordinance. 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 0.0' 107.9' 50.0' 07.9'9' 5.0' 5.0' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 50.0' 113.3' 8.2' 42.5' 120.4'50.0' 102.9' 26.7' 24.4' 113.3'45.0' 153.9' 421 19.3' 7.9' 151.4' 7.9' 50.1' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 45.0 6.0' 45.0' 06.0' 106.0'106.0' 20.7' 71.6' 26.3' 67.6' 35.9'4.3' 121.6' 2.2' 106.8' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 109.7' 50.8' 101.3'50.0' 128.9' 109.7' 50.0' 101.3' 50.1' 102.9' 90' 62.6' 88.2' 62.6' 88.2' 53.9' 60.0' 120.0'20.0' 80.0' 60.0' 102.8' 100.0' 70.0' 71.7' 27.1' 49.6' 62.6' 19.0' 47.2'71.7' 65.0' 106.0'150.0' 90.0' 9.7'2.0'22.0' 126.2' 50.0' 114.7' 32.6' 2 0.9' 95.8' 50.0' 95.8' 1 2.2' 40.6' 79.6' 50.0' 79.6' 21.0' 46.2' 47.6' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 107.9' 55.0' 107.9' 55.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 45.0' 107.9' 45.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 10.0' 94.0' 107.9' 106.0' 87.9' 15.7'2.0' 55.0' 140.0' 55.0' 140.0' 75.0' 165.0' 75.0' 165.0' 165.0' 50.0' 165.0' 99.2' 155.0' 120.1' 104.3' 110.2' 15.7' 94.0' 31.4' 57.7' 24.9' 20.6' 85.1' 119.2' 165.0' 109.0' 13.7' 130.2'98.7' 130.2' 141.2' 120.3' 15.7' 131.3' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 100.0' 106.0' 100.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 120.4' 50.5' 114.7' 110.0' 140.0' 100.0' 15.7' 130.0' 27.6' 127.4' 49.9' 155.0' 49.9' 155.0' 59.1' 155.0' 59.1' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 143.0' 50.0 50.0' 120.0'120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 120.0' 60.0' 92.9' 15.7' 50.0' 102.8' 44.5' 143.0' 44.5' 143.0' 44.5' 143.0' 44.5' 143.0' 44.5' 142.5' 44.5' 142.5' 44.5' 142.5' 44.5' 142.5' 108.0' 93.8' 15.7' 98.0' 103.6'103.6'167.5' 15.7' 93.1' 177.5'50.0' 142.5' 50.0' 142.5' 50.0' 142.5' 50.0' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 50.0' 143.0' 20.6' 24.9' 57.7' 31.4' 30.1' 120.0' 35.1' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 119.9' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 89.0'119.8' 89.0'120.0' 110.0' 130.2' 55.0' 109.0' 165.0'239.2' 105.0' 55.0' 130.2' 120.0' 50.0' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.8' 53.0' 119.8' 53.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.7' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 148.8' 148.8' 153.9' 150.4' 150.4' 76.7' 37.7' 37.6' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 119.8' 119.8' 101.6' 93.6' 66.0' 53.4' 82.5' 82.5' 165.0' 55.1' 265.0' 74.2' 50.0' 119.7' 164.5' 239.2' 239.2' 5.9' 45.0' 101.2' 38.9' 18.9' 175.8' 1.2' 80.6' 150.0' 161.8'7.5' 101.2' 19.2' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 110.0'110.0' 110.0'110.0' 110.0' 100.0' 89.0' 92.4' 7.9'17.4' 45.0' 120.0' 45.0' 45.0' 120.0' 45.0' BARRON AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMIN MATADERO AV BARRON AVENUE CURTNER AVENUE WILTON AVENUE KENDALL AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL MADELINE COURT CY PRESS LANE LANE 66 L A R-2 RM-30 CN 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) 3703-3709 El Camino Real Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0' 128' Existing Zoning Map - 3703-3709 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 gowen, 2018-09-18 17:43:11 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment E: Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies – 3703-3709 El Camino Real Land Use Element • Policy L-2.5: Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. • Policy L-2.4: Use a variety of strategies to stimulate housing, near retail, employment, and transit, in a way that connects to and enhances existing neighborhoods. • Program L2.4.7: Explore mechanisms for increasing multi-family housing density near multimodal transit centers. • 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. • Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. • Policy L-4.2: Preserve ground-floor retail, limit the displacement of existing retail from neighborhood centers and explore opportunities to expand retail. • Policy L-4.15: Recognize El Camino Real as both a local serving and regional serving corridor, defined by a mix of commercial uses and housing. • Policy L-6.7: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. 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. • 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 area within one-half 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. • Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. • 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. • Program H2.1.6: Consider density bonuses and/or concessions including allowing greater concessions for 100% affordable housing developments. • Program H2.2.8: Assess the potential of removing maximum residential densities (i.e. dwelling units per acre) in mixed use zoning districts to encourage the creation of smaller housing units within the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and adopt standards as appropriate. • Program H2.1.10: As a part of planning for the future of El Camino Real, explore the identification of pedestrian nodes (i.e. “pearls on a string”) consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines, with greater densities in these nodes than in other areas. • Program H2.2.6: On parcels zoned for mixed use, consider allowing exclusively residential use on extremely small parcels through the transfer of zoning requirements between adjacent parcels to create horizontal mixed use arrangements. If determined to be appropriate, adopt an ordinance to implement this program. • Program H3.1.5: Encourage the use of flexible development standards, including floor-area ratio limits, creative architectural solutions, and green building practices in the design of projects with a substantial BMR component. • Program H3.1.12: Amend the Zoning Code to provide additional incentives to developers who provide extremely low-income (ELI), very low-income, and low income housing units, above and beyond what is required by the Below Market Rate program, such as reduced parking requirements for smaller units, reduced landscaping requirements, and reduced fees. Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3703-3709 El Camino Real Zoning District CN (Existing Zoning) (1) CN (AH) (Proposed Zoning) Regulation Required Required Minimum Site Area (ft2) None Required Same as Underlying District Site Width (ft) None Required Same as Underlying District Site Depth (ft) None Required Same as Underlying District Min. Front Yard 0 – 10 feet to create an 8 – 12 feet effective sidewalk width (8) Same as Underlying District Min. Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion Same as Underlying District Min. Interior Side Yard 10 feet (for lots abutting a residential zone district) Same as Underlying District Min. Street Side Yard 5 feet Same as Underlying District Special Setback No Same as Underlying District Build-to-Lines 50 percent of frontage built to setback; 33 percent of side street built to setback (1) Same as Underlying District Maximum Site Coverage 50 percent None Required Maximum Height Standard: 40 feet on El Camino Real Maximum Height Within 150 feet of a residential zone district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the side: 35 feet (4) Standard: 50 feet Maximum Height Within 50 ft of a R1, R-2, RMD, RM-15, or RM-30 zoned property: 35 feet (3) Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.6:1 (4) 2.0:1 Maximum Total Mixed Use Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 (4) 2.4:1 Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line Same as Underlying District Page 2 of 3 Maximum Residential Density per Acre 15-20 units/per acre (8) None Required Minimum Site Open Space (percent) 30 percent 20 percent (2) Minimum Usable Open Space (sf per unit) 150 sf per unit (when six units or more) (2) 25 sf per unit for 5 or fewer units, 50 sf per unit for 6 units or more (2) Minimum Common Open Space (sf per unit) N/A None Required Minimum Private Open Space (sf per unit) N/A None Required Multiple-Family Off-Street Parking Requirement 1.25 per studio, 1.5 per one- bedroom; 2 per two-bedroom 0.75 per unit. The Director may modify this standard based on findings from a parking study that show fewer spaces are needed for the project. The required parking ratio for special needs housing units, as defined in Section 51312 of the Health and Safety Code shall not exceed 0.3 spaces per unit. Guest Parking 33% of all residential units provided None Bicycle Parking PAMC 18.52.040 Table 1 1 space per unit/ 100% Long Term (LT) Unknown CN Notes 1) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. 2) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space); (3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension twelve feet. 3) Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use. 4) For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential). 5) For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC) district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet. 6) Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, hotels and eating and drinking establishments. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor regulations. 7) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. 8) Residential densities up to 20 units/acre only on CN zoned housing inventory sites identified in the Housing Element. CN (AH) Notes 1) These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23, as well as the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.13.060 for residential-only Page 3 of 3 projects, Section 18.16.090 for mixed use projects in the CN, CC, and CS districts, and Section 18.18.110 for mixed use projects in the CD district, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020. 2) Landscape coverage is the total area of the site covered with landscaping as defined in Chapter 18.04. For the purposes of this Chapter 18.30(J), areas provided for usable open space may be counted towards the landscape site coverage requirement. Landscape and open space areas may be located on or above the ground level, and may include balconies, terraces, and rooftop gardens. 3) The Planning Director may recommend a waiver from the transitional height standard. Attachment F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to PTC Members. 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: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “3705 El Camino Real” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “3705 El Camino Real - Resubmittal” Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 9407) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/26/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2018 Housing Work Plan Ordinance Framework Title: PUBLIC HEARING. The Planning and Transportation Commission Will Consider an Ordinance Amending Various Sections of Title 18 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Related to Development Standards Including Minimum and Maximum Unit Density, Floor Area Ratio, Height, and Open Space; Parking Requirements; Ground– Floor Retail Provisions; the Approval Process, and Other Regulations Governing Residential and Mixed-Use Development; All to Promote Housing Development Opportunities in Zoning Districts, in Furtherance of Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. CEQA: Determination of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Certified and Adopted on November 13, 2017 by Council Resolution No.9720. From: Jonathan Lait Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC): 1. Conduct a public hearing and provide comments on the draft Comprehensive Plan Implementation/Housing Ordinance and continue the hearing to October 10, 2018. Report Summary The Background section of this report summarizes the purpose of the Housing Work Plan and work completed to date on the Comprehensive Plan Implementation/Housing Ordinance. The Discussion of this report presents draft zoning revisions that would meet the intent of the Housing Work Plan referral to the PTC. Changes are proposed in the following areas: • Density/intensity Standards, including a Housing Incentive Program (a local alternative to State Density Bonus Law and SB35 streamlining) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 • Open Space Standards • Parking Standards • Project Review Process • Use Regulations Changes are proposed as a complete package. Although refinements and modifications to standards may be warranted, removal of some concepts may erode the effectiveness of achieving the goal of providing additional housing units. The Analysis section of the report analyzes potential impacts of the draft zoning revisions, including how the revisions would increase housing production and affordability, and implications under State Density Bonus Law and SB35 streamlining provisions. City staff are preparing a draft ordinance in accordance with recommendations in this report. Background On February 12, 2018, the City Council approved a Housing Work Plan, which outlines steps to implement the City’s vision and adopted policies and programs for housing production, affordability, and preservation. The Work Plan includes select policies and programs from the adopted Comprehensive Plan, adopted Housing Element, and a City Council colleagues’ memo. The Work Plan describes the City’s progress towards the housing production goals at various income levels (i.e. RHNA) identified in the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. The Work Plan also explains the City’s progress towards the housing projections developed during preparation of the updated Comprehensive Plan (i.e., 3,545-4,420 new units between 2015 and 2030). In both cases, the City is behind in its effort to meet these goals. The approved Housing Work Plan indicates what action is needed to spur the production of housing. The City Council referred to the PTC specific Work Plan items related to a 2018 zoning amendment ordinance. The PTC has held four study sessions to analyze various aspects of the Work Plan and to consider possible zoning changes to facilitate implementation of both the Work Plan and (by extension) the Comprehensive Plan housing production targets. A summary of previous study sessions is provided, as follows: • March 14th: The PTC discussed the Work Plan goals, timeline, and the PTC’s role in implementation. • April 25th: The PTC discussed key issues in the zoning code as they relate to the Council referral, including issues regarding development standards and the entitlement process. • May 30th: The PTC discussed parking topics as they relate to housing production, including a new study of parking occupancy in multi-family residential developments in Palo Alto. • August 29th: The PTC discussed a conceptual framework for the ordinance, including ideas for zoning changes to development and parking standards, use regulations, and City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 the public review process. The report is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66513. As Council directed, staff has conducted two complementary community outreach efforts: (1) meetings with developers and architects who regularly use the City’s zoning code; and (2) a community meeting with the public at-large. The City is pursuing these zoning updates in parallel with several other zoning and policy changes to achieve Work Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Housing Element goals. Specifically, changes to local implementation of State Density Bonus Law, an updated Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance, a new Affordable Housing Overlay, and a new Workforce Housing Overlay are intended to facilitate affordable housing at varying income levels and market rate housing opportunities, consistent with the City’s adopted policy. In 2019, the second phase of the Housing Work Plan will include policy discussions regarding the below market rate housing program inclusionary requirements; no net-loss housing policies; protections for cottages and duplexes in the R1 and R2 districts, among other initiatives. As the subject zoning changes are implemented through individual development projects, the City will continue to evaluate the effects of the code change, and make additional revisions over time, as necessary. Discussion This section provides an overview of proposed zoning changes, by location and/or zoning district: citywide, multi-family, Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real. The following zoning revisions represent a continued effort to increase housing production and shift redevelopment interests toward housing. The recommendations represent a modest step in that direction, but City policy on commercial development, high property values, commercial rents, construction costs and other market influences blunt efforts to expand housing opportunities without significant concessions on housing density and parking. The proposed suite of amendments is intended to be considered as a complete package. Although refinements and modifications to standards may be warranted, each concept is inter- related to site planning and housing production objectives, and eliminating one concept could limit the ordinance’s effectiveness. Recent action by the State legislature with the passage of SB 35 and other housing reforms requires careful examination of how changes in local housing policy may result in development that is larger than anticipated and permitted by-right. The recommendations below are intended to support State and regional housing policy interests, while ensuring Palo Alto retains local control of development with opportunities for analysis of project related impacts. Consistent with the 2018 Work Plan, the recommendations promote market rate and affordable housing unit production. Commercial floor area is not decreased, but residential City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 uses may apply unused commercial floor area toward housing. Future policy direction may consider further incentives for housing by reducing the amount of commercial floor area that can be achieved. For example, on California Avenue, commercial land uses today can reach a 2.0 FAR. Adjusting housing from .6 to up to 2.0 FAR as proposed is helpful, but may not persuade a land owner redeveloping their property to build residential housing instead of commercial. Decreasing office floor area or significantly increasing residential FAR and possibly height limits are standards that could be adjusted further in the future if the proposed changes and market conditions do not result in new housing projects. In addition to the recommended changes below, staff seeks PTC feedback on a couple remaining policy considerations which are presented in this section. Most of the information below has been conceptually reviewed by the PTC at its last meeting with some new additions and refinements. Summary of Proposed Zoning Code Amendments1 1. CITYWIDE a. Open Space. Establish a consistent open space requirement for multi-family housing units in multi-family residential and commercial districts of 150 square feet (current code ranges from 100 to 200 square feet depending on the number of units provided). b. Review Process. Eliminate Site & Design Review, which requires—in commercial zones—PTC, Architectural Review Board (ARB) and City Council review of residential and residential mixed-use projects with 10 or more dwelling units. Maintain ARB review and opportunities for appeals to City Council. c. Retail Preservation. Exempt 100% affordable housing projects (120% AMI and below) from the retail preservation requirement except in the Ground Floor (GF) and Retail (R) combining districts. d. Parking. Adjust multifamily parking requirements based on maximum anticipated demand and to reflect state authorized parking standards for qualifying state density bonus housing projects (see Table 1). Other changes are proposed to incentivize affordable housing and reflect lower parking demand near transit. Table 1. Existing and Proposed Parking Standards Use/Unit Type Existing Proposed Citywide Within ½-Mile of Fixed Rail Station* 1 Further analysis of these concepts provided in the Analysis section of the report. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Micro Unit (<450 sq. ft.) No current standard 1 0.8 Studio 1.25 1 0.8 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 0.8 2+ Bedroom 2 2 1.6 Guest 1+10% of total units included above Senior Housing up to 50% reduction from existing standard 0.75 No additional parking reduction. Affordable Housing Potential reduction by income level: 40% for extremely low 30% for very low 20% for low income Allow existing reductions by right Housing Near Transit up to 20% reduction See far right column See far right column Mixed-use Projects up to 20% reduction no change * Projects that qualify for this standard must provide annual transit passes (ie; Go Passes) to each tenant. 2. MULTI-FAMILY ZONES (RM-15, RM-30, RM-40) a. Unit Density. Replace RM-15 zoning designation, which allows 15 units per acre with a RM-20 designation that allows 20 units per acre to align with Housing Element density allowance. b. Minimum Density. Establish a minimum unit density as provided below, but allow fewer units when determined by the planning director, after review by the ARB, that existing site improvements or parcel constraints preclude meeting this minimum standard: • RM-20: 11 units/acre • RM-30: 16 units/acre • RM-40: 21 units/acre c. Non-complying Unit Density. Allow redevelopment and replacement of legally established housing units that exceed the maximum unit density allowed for the parcel, subject to the following criteria: i. Other than unit density, the project complies with all applicable development standards. ii. The development shall not be eligible for a density bonus pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.15, if the total number of units being replaced or newly constructed exceeds 135% of the maximum unit density permitted for the parcel. Utilization of this provision shall be an alternative to density bonus that the applicant could elect to request. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 iii. Application of this provision shall apply to rental housing only, not ownership units. d. Administrative Code Clean Up. Modify PAMC Section 18.13.040(g) regarding below market rate (BMR) housing units to reflect regulatory requirements of Title 16.65. 3. DOWNTOWN CD-C ZONING DISTRICT a. Unit Density. Eliminate the unit density requirement restricting the maximum density to 40 units per acre. With the proposed amendment, unit density would be controlled by other existing development standards, such as height, floor area, parking requirements, etc. b. Unit Size. Establish a maximum housing unit size of 1,800 square feet. c. Retail Parking. Exempt the first 1,500 sq. ft. of ground-floor retail from parking requirements within residential mixed-use buildings. d. Driveway Approach. Reinforce existing city policy and guidelines to preclude curb cuts on University Avenue, except for City-owned parcels or City-sponsored projects. e. Residential Only Development. Allow housing-only projects to be constructed downtown, except in the ground floor (GF) combining district. Retail preservation ordinance standards apply for market rate housing projects. Note, current zoning standards permit housing only when part of a commercial, mixed- use development or on housing opportunity sites (i.e., in the Housing Element). f. Open Space. Allow rooftops to qualify for up to 75% of the usable open space requirement for the multi-family residential portion of a project, subject to objective performance standards (see September 20, 2018 ARB Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66725). g. Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs). Reiterate what is already provided for in the zoning code that the maximum limit for projects that include TDRs is a 3.0 FAR. A project using TDRs and any other existing or proposed floor area bonuses, plus any incentive or concessions granted in accordance with the BMR program could not exceed a maximum 3.0 FAR. h. Housing Incentive Program (HIP). Establish a process that would allow property owners to apply to receive greater floor area than otherwise allowed under the zoning code and under State Density Bonus Law. This program would be an alternative to the local BMR program and State Density Bonus Law and would not be available for qualifying SB 35 (streamlining) housing projects. Significant components of the HIP include the following: i. Increase residential FAR from 1.0 to 2.0. ii. Allow residential projects to use the commercial FAR, except for that portion of the commercial FAR required to remain commercial by the requirements of the retail preservation ordinance or GF combining district. When used with subsection (i) above, a 100% residential project could achieve a 3.0 residential FAR; less if commercial is required or proposed on the ground floor. iii. No TDRs may be used in conjunction with a qualifying HIP project. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 iv. Require discretionary architectural review consistent with PAMC 18.76.020 (Architectural Review) v. OPTIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR PTC. Allow 100% affordable housing projects at a specified AMI percentage to achieve a higher FAR and additional feet in height when located within .5 miles of a major transit stop (i.e., the Caltrain station). i. OPTIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR PTC. In-lieu parking provides a significant incentive for commercial redevelopment based on current application of this code section. While a comprehensive analysis of the in-lieu parking program is not proposed with this ordinance, staff recommends the Commission discuss the appropriateness of including restrictions on the use of in-lieu parking for commercial uses above the ground floor as a means to further incentive housing development. 4. CALIFORNIA AVENUE CC-2 ZONING DISTRICT a. Unit Density. Eliminate the unit density requirement restricting the maximum density, which currently ranges from 30 to 50 dwelling units per acre. With the proposed amendment, unit density would be controlled by other existing development standards, such as height, floor area, parking requirements, etc. b. Residential Only Development. Allow housing only projects to be constructed, except on properties in the retail shopping (R) combining district. Current zoning standards permit housing only when part of a commercial, mixed-use development. c. Retail Parking. Exempt the first 1,500 sq. ft. of ground-floor retail from parking requirements within residential mixed-use buildings. d. Driveway Approach. Reinforce existing City policy and guidelines to preclude curb cuts on California Avenue, except for City-owned parcels or City-sponsored projects. e. Open Space. Allow rooftops to qualify for up to 75% of the usable open space requirement for the multi-family residential portion of a project, subject to objective performance standards. f. Housing Incentive Program (HIP). Establish a process that would allow property owners to apply to receive greater floor area than otherwise allowed under the zoning code. This program would be an alternative to the local BMR program and state density bonus law and would not available for qualifying SB 35 (housing streamlining) housing projects. Significant components of the HIP include the following: i. Allow residential projects to use the commercial FAR allowance, except for that portion of the commercial FAR required to remain commercial by the requirements of the retail preservation ordinance or GF combining district. Therefore, a 100% residential project could achieve a 2.0 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 residential FAR (0.6 currently, plus an additional 1.4 FAR); less if commercial is required or proposed on the ground floor. ii. Require discretionary architectural review consistent with PAMC 18.76.020 (Architectural Review) iii. OPTIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE PTC. Allow 100% affordable housing projects at a specified AMI percentage to achieve a 2.5 FAR and extend to 50 feet in height when located within .5 miles of a major transit stop (i.e., the Caltrain station). 5. PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO EL CAMINO REAL IN THE CN AND CS ZONING DISTRICTS a. Unit Density. Eliminate the unit density requirement restricting the maximum density, which currently ranges from 30 to 50 dwelling units per acre. With the proposed amendment, unit density would be controlled by other existing development standards, such as height, floor area, parking requirements, etc. b. Open Space. Allow rooftops to qualify for up to 75% of the usable open space requirement for the multi-family residential portion of a project, subject to objective performance standards. c. Retail Parking. Exempt the first 1,500 sq. ft. of ground-floor retail from parking requirements within new residential mixed-use buildings that are subject to the retail preservation ordinance. d. Residential Only Development. Allow housing only projects to be constructed along El Camino Real, except in defined South El Camino nodes (see below). Retail preservation ordinance standards apply for market rate housing projects. Current zoning standards permit housing only when part of a commercial, mixed- use development. e. Nodes and Corridors. Expand on the nodes and corridors concept in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and clearly define street boundaries showing the location of specific nodes. Seek Council support to conduct a retail preservation fee nexus study and allow property owners to pay an in-lieu fee to remove protected retail preservation land uses within the defined corridors. Funds collected from this program could be used for low interest loans supporting small business owners with rent subsidies or construction loans for tenant improvements. See Attachment 2 for node boundaries. f. Pedestrian (P) Combining District. Extend the requirements of the (P) combining district to properties located in the defined node boundaries. g. Ground Floor Residential Design Standards. Adopt objective design standards to create an attractive active appearance for residential development on the ground-floor, while also maintaining privacy for residents: i. Individual dwelling units shall not be permitted on the ground-floor fronting El Camino Real. Instead, the ground-floor frontage on El Camino Real may include common areas, such as lobbies, stoops, community rooms, and work-out spaces with windows and architectural detail to City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 create visualize interest. Ground floor residential permitted beyond the common areas and away from El Camino Real. ii. Parking shall be located behind buildings or below grade, or, where those options are not feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls, or structured garages with architectural detail. h. Housing Incentive Program (HIP). Establish a process that would allow property owners to apply to receive greater floor area than otherwise allowed under the zoning code. This program would be an alternative to the local BMR program and State Density Bonus Law and would not available for qualifying SB 35 (housing streamlining) housing projects. Significant components of the HIP include the following: i. Increase residential FAR from .5 (CN) and .6 (CS) to 1.0. ii. Allow residential projects to use the commercial FAR allowance (0.5 in the CN and 0.4 in the CS), except for that portion of the commercial FAR required to remain commercial by the requirements of the retail preservation ordinance or GF combining district. When used with subsection (i) above, a 100% residential project could achieve a 1.5 residential FAR in the CN and 1.4 in the CS; less if commercial is required or proposed on the ground floor. iii. Eliminate the 50% lot coverage requirement and instead rely on site planning, landscape and setback requirements. iv. Require discretionary architectural review consistent with PAMC 18.76.020 (Architectural Review) Analysis The City’s recently updated Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies which were projected to stimulate production of 3,545 and 4,420 new units between 2015 and 2030. Table 2 explores this low and high range under scenarios where all BMR units are built on site through the 15% inclusionary housing program or where in-lieu fees are paid and leveraged on a 2:1 basis such that affordable housing developers build stand-alone BMR projects. This could be achieved through a combination of zoning updates and other efforts underway (i.e., an updated Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance, a new Affordable Housing Overlay, and a new Workforce Housing Overlay). Beyond this analysis, actual maximum buildout rates are also based on economics of the overall housing market over the next 11 years (through 2030). Table 2 Maximum Buildout Through 2030, by Affordability Level Total Inclusionary (15% of Units) In-lieu Fee/Leveraged (2:1) BMR Market Rate BMR Market Rate City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Total Inclusionary (15% of Units) In-lieu Fee/Leveraged (2:1) BMR Market Rate BMR Market Rate Net New Maximum (Low Range) 3,545 532 3,013 1,064 2,482 Net New Maximum (High Range) 4,420 663 3,757 1,326 3,094 Existing 29,189 2,182 27,007 2,182 27,007 Total/Potential Maximum (Low Range) 32,734 2,714 30,020 3,246 29,489 Total/Potential Maximum (High Range) 33,609 2,845 30,764 3,508 30,101 % Increase (Existing to Potential) 12 - 15% Source: Projected Estimates and Existing BMR: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Planning and Community Environment Department, September 2018. Existing Estimate: State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2011-2018. Sacramento, California, May 2018. To achieve the stated housing targets, the City’s development standards require modification. The proposed amendments do not fundamentally change the buildable envelope of projects in the affected zoning districts. There are no recommended changes to height2, setbacks, and transitional height limits (daylight plane)3. There are proposed increases to floor area, which may result in bulkier buildings, but it remains defined by the envelope already prescribed by the code. Moreover, the proposed FAR thresholds are maximums and not guaranteed to be achieved on every property being redeveloped. Floor area, density allowance and parking are some of the greatest drivers influencing unit yield, which informs a property owner’s decision to redevelop property. Other factors, many of which are addressed in the proposed amendments, support land use decisions that can spur housing development. Lot consolidation, not addressed in the proposed amendments, is another area requires further exploration and should be considered in phase 2 of this multi- year housing work plan. State Density Bonus Law / SB 35 (Housing) Streamlining 2 This report asks the PTC to explore whether increased height for 100% affordable housing projects is appropriate Downtown. 3 Along El Camino Real, changes are recommended to lot coverage. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 A key consideration that went into these recommendations was the inter-relatedness between the City’s existing and proposed standards; bonuses, waivers and incentives authorized by the State Density Bonus program and application of State law, notably SB 35. The City’s density, height, and other development standards represent the “base” or “floor” standards for a project proposed under SB35 and State Density Bonus Law. Under State Density Bonus Law, an applicant can achieve up to 35% additional density bonus (i.e., increased FAR from 1.0 to 1.35 or 2.0 to 2.7) in exchange for providing affordable housing on site. The provision of 11% of units at Very-Low Income levels or 20% of units at Low Income levels qualify a project for the 35% density bonus which means that many residential projects in Palo Alto— which are subject to the City’s 15% inclusionary housing ordinance—would automatically qualify for such a bonus. The State Density Bonus Law and the City’s density bonus ordinance provide developers an opportunity to seek development incentives or concessions that support the construction of the affordable housing units. When preparing the recommended changes, staff sought to provide sufficient incentives to encourage developers to use a local alternative to the State Density Bonus. The Housing Incentive Program (HIP), identified in the Discussion section above, is that alternative program. When electing the development standards in this program, the developer is not eligible for additional bonuses or incentives. The developer could opt not to apply for the HIP and use the base zoning standards in conjunction with State law, but those standards and incentives yield less floor area and therefore would be a less attractive alternative. By right housing development in accordance with SB 35 has occurred in nearby jurisdictions. Some of the provisions included in the City’s proposed ordinance are intended to introduce clear objective standards that would apply to by right housing development, such as SB 35 Streamlining Effective January 1, 2018, SB 35, the “by right” housing bill, allows residential or residential mixed use projects with at least 2/3 residential floor area, that meet certain affordability requirements, and are consistent with the City’s zoning and other “objective standards” to secure a streamlined review process (90 to 180 days depending on the project size). No CEQA review is required and no discretionary review (e.g., ARB, PTC or Council review) is permitted beyond advisory comments. Projects near transit may take advantage of zero parking requirements. Presently, in Palo Alto, housing projects with 50% or more housing units deed restricted to affordable housing income levels and that meet other specific requirements, may be eligible projects. State Density Bonus Law California’s Density Bonus Law gives developers the right to build additional dwelling units and obtain flexibility in local development requirements, in exchange for building affordable or senior housing. State Density Bonus Law may be used in combination with SB35. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 clarification of existing policies related to TDRs and curb cuts on California and University Avenues. As directed by the Council through its adopted Housing Work Plan, staff is concurrently working on other changes to the zoning code that will introduce more objective standards that can be applied to future housing projects, including SB 35 development. None of the recommendations in this report preclude SB 35 or State Density Bonus development. The balance of this report provides more information supporting the key recommendations in the proposed ordinance. Parking Any project that is eligible for a State Density Bonus is also eligible for a by-right parking reduction. Since compliance with the City’s BMR program generally qualifies a developer for a density bonus, and thus reduced parking, staff recommends using that model to establish the multi-family parking requirements citywide. From this new base, staff recommends further parking reductions for affordable housing projects and housing near fixed rail transit stations. The current code provides an opportunity to reduce parking for affordable housing projects up to 40%. This represents a discretionary request, which complicates application processing for affordable housing providers. Supported by findings from the parking study and other empirical data, staff recommends the discretion be removed from the parking reduction and that the City’s existing standard be applied by right based on deed restricted housing income levels. Instead of requesting a 20%, 30% or 40% parking reduction based on income as allowed by code today, an affordable housing provider would be automatically eligible for a reduction. The recommended parking requirements are provided in the Discussion section above. Similarly, the zoning code also allows for a 20% reduction for housing near transit. Staff recommends applying that standard by right eliminating the controversy that often surrounds requests for parking reductions. In exchange for using this proposed standard, property owners would be required to provide transit passes (Caltrain) for tenant occupants over a specified age. Additionally, the zoning changes include an exemption for the first 1,500 sq. ft. of ground-floor retail from parking requirements. According to the developer/architect interviews conducted, provision of parking for the commercial portion of mixed use residential buildings can be challenge to making a project viable. This exemption would help to relieve physical and financial constraints, and instead provide an incentive for including retail uses in a project. At the last PTC meeting there were comments made concerning the City’s residential preferential parking program, which is unchanged by the proposed ordinance. In response to Commission comments from the August 29th hearing, the following responses are provided: • Residential Preferential Parking Program (RPP). Some commissioners expressed interest in expanding the RPP, which generally limit the number of non-resident vehicles that can be parked in the neighborhood. There is a process to establish an RPP in a given City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 neighborhood; the program which is established in PAMC Chapter 10.50 is not proposed to change as part of this zoning update. • Maximum Standards. Some Commissioners expressed interest in development parking maximums instead of minimums. Parking maximums are gaining popularity, especially in communities where there is a shared opinion that parking takes up an excessive amount of land and an overabundance of parking increases traffic. They work best in areas with good transit service where “car- lite” living is feasible (see text box at right). Based on feedback received from PTC members, staff is not pursuing parking maximums at this time. Aligning parking supply and demand would help set the right amount of parking based on use and location, and free up space to be used for additional housing units, community space, or other amenities. However, staff has heard from developers that the proposed parking standards are still challenging to accommodate new housing development particularly given the small lots Downtown. At this time, staff is not prepared, based on the available data, to make further reductions. Exploring options for small lot consolidation in the future may help address this perceived constraint. Application Processing Time How a use is approved by the City, whether it is permitted through an administrative (staff- level) approval or a public review process, can present an incentive or disincentive to its development. These revisions seek to streamline the review process, while still providing opportunities for public and decision-maker input. The public review process provides opportunities for community input and feedback from decision-makers, but also adds time, expense, and uncertainty from the perspective of applicants. Streamlining the review process by maintaining Architectural Review and eliminating Site & Design Review would maintain the following processes, but eliminate the burden placed on projects to undergo review by three separate bodies: 1. Staff review of zoning compliance 2. Public noticing and public comment at ARB hearings 3. Project review of context-based design criteria by the ARB 4. Opportunity for appeal to the City Council would be maintained. Notably, this proposed process represents the same process that currently exists for most project types in the city, including non-residential projects, residential projects with 10 or more A nearby example of parking maximums are in Mountain View, as part of the North Bayshore Precise Plan: • 0.25 space per micro-unit • 0.50 space per 1 bedroom unit • 1.0 space per 2 or 3 bedroom unit These rates were developed to support Mountain View’s goal of restricting the amount of traffic entering and exiting North Bayshore. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14 units in the RM districts, and residential or mixed-use projects with fewer than 10 units. Site & Design Review was originally created to address environmental issues in the Baylands area and was later applied to review mixed-use projects when the concept was relatively new. Density and Intensity Standards Current density/intensity maximums are one of the major items restricting housing production, according to architects and developers interviewed, and to the quantitative analysis of housing opportunity sites completed for Downtown.4 Unit Density Eliminating residential density standards in the commercial mixed-use districts would allow more flexibility for developers to increase the overall unit count without affecting the massing or design of a project. A density standard would still be retained in the form of FAR. This change could modestly increase the number of units proposed and the affordability of those units without impacting the massing and bulk of a project. Minimum Unit Size Setting reasonable minimum densities on conforming lots ensures that sites will not be underutilized, while not creating a burden on property owners and developers. This change could incrementally increase the number of units proposed and the affordability of those units, without impacting the building envelope already permitted pursuant to current regulations. Increasing the residential density maximum in RM-15 district from 15 to 20 (and renaming the district accordingly) would make the allowed densities in the Housing Element and district regulations consistent and provide an opportunity for some increased density. The proposed zoning change contemplates circumstances whereby a property owner is not able to meet the minimum density standards and establishes a review and approval process to permit of fewer units if warranted due to site constraints. Commercial Floor Area May be Used for Residential Projects The proposed amendments include a provision to allow residential development to achieve the total FAR that is currently allowed for mixed-use projects, plus additional bonuses available to residential or residential mixed-use projects with HIP. Allowing residential FAR to compose the entire mixed-use FAR allowance would remove some of the disincentive that currently exists for residential development compared with commercial development, due to construction costs, lease rates, and development standards. This specific change would not increase the total amount of development currently allowed by the code, but may incrementally increase the amount of future residential development, and therefore decrease the amount of new commercial development. Maximum Unit Size 4 Dyett & Bhatia and EPS. “Downtown Development Evaluation: Residential Capacity and Feasibility Analysis” October 30, 2017. <https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64477> City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15 Due to a combination of parking requirements and high rental rates, the City has seen several large penthouse dwelling units constructed in Downtown in recent years. When a developer has a 12,000 square foot floor plate, they could choose to develop 12 units at 1,000 square feet which requires 26 parking spaces or 3 units at 4,000 square feet each that requires only 6 parking spaces. Without the benefit of an in-lieu parking fee, residential parking spaces must be provided on site. Developers say they cannot fit many spaces on site without going underground, which is prohibitively expensive. As a result, the developer builds a few luxury units rather than 12 moderately-sized units. This new standard is intended to eliminate the former option Downtown. Combined with reduced parking requirements (including for micro units), this standard would provide an incentive for small and moderate-sized units in the City’s most walkable transit-oriented core. Open Space On-site open space is an important factor in supporting livability in higher density residential areas, but current standards are applied inconsistently across districts and housing types. Standardization can clarify what is expected of developers, while flexibility in where open space may be located can provide opportunities to develop sites with the allowable massing and unit density. Building Rooftops The zoning code requires open space for residential uses in the City’s commercial districts. In areas of the City designated for higher density multi-family housing, options for how to configure the massing and site plan for a project can help maximize the number of units that are appropriate for a site. Moreover, rooftop decks in a climate such as Palo Alto can offer an amenity for residents to take advantage of views and community outdoor space. To address issues of privacy, noise, visibility, odors, and safety, staff prepared draft standards and guidelines for consideration by the public, ARB and PTC. Standardized Requirements Layers of development standards make interpreting the City’s code complicated and may reduce the development “envelope” available on a site. While these regulations are based on reasonable community desires (e.g., providing access to light, air, landscaping, and outdoor space), in combination they have the drawback of constricting the developable site area and therefore potential unit yield on a site. Providing a single standard for each district—regardless of how many units are on the site—simplifies the code and eliminates any bias for projects that are choosing between proposing five or six units. This concept maintains the current required landscaping areas and dimensional requirements. The proposed ordinance also contemplates micro-units with a maximum floor area of 450 square feet and reduced parking requirements. While open space is an important component for any dwelling unit the 150 square foot approach is excessive for these units; staff recommends 40 square feet and welcomes Commission feedback on this approach. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16 Retail Preservation The Retail Preservation Ordinance has the benefit of preventing the conversion of retail uses and precluding office uses from occupying these spaces. However, the ordinance may also frustrate City efforts to enhance housing production by retaining retail in areas that do not have a strong retail environment and instances where a housing provider is unable or unwilling to include new retail floor area in their project due to financing, constructions costs (more required parking) or other market considerations. To balance the tradeoff between housing production and retail preservation, staff recommends a narrow exemption to the Retail Preservation Ordinance for affordable housing developments on sites outside of the GF and R overlays in Downtown and California Avenue, respectively. Ground Floor Parking Reduction To support continued retention of ground floor retail uses while recognizing the challenges developers have making a mixed-use housing project viable, staff recommends mixed-use developments in the CN and CS commercial districts along El Camino Real be granted a parking waiver from the first 1,500 square feet of a retail or retail-like use. This reduction is approximately 8 parking spaces for a retail use or 18 spaces for a 1,500 square foot eating and drinking establishment. This waiver would apply only in instances where a property owner is required to re-establish the retail or retail-like use pursuant to the retail preservation ordinance. South El Camino Nodes / Corridors & Future Retail Preservation Waiver Use regulations in the zoning code generally only permit multi-family residential uses as part of mixed-use developments in the Downtown, California Avenue, and many places along El Camino Real. Furthermore, the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines acknowledge that a continuous pedestrian-oriented environment along the 2+-mile corridor of El Camino Real is unrealistic.5 Instead, the guidelines describe a “node” concept to focus investment in areas with existing pedestrian amenities, retail uses, and good transit access. Staff and consultants reviewed existing land use, parcel size, project pipeline, and zoning information for the South El Camino Real corridor, and conducted a visual survey of sites on the corridor to understand vacancy rates, site conditions, character, and concentration of retail. These efforts revealed clear nodes of commercial development at the El Camino Way “triangle,” around California Avenue, and at the city’s southern border. Uses, street character, and projects under construction or in the pipeline are helping to create concentrations of retail and mixed-use development. However, the approximately ½ mile stretch of the corridor extending from Page Mill Road south to Wilton Avenue/Kendall Avenue is more bric-a-brac in the land use pattern, provides viable 5 City of Palo Alto. South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. May 2012: 13. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 17 sites of 10,000 square feet, often occupied by small 1-story buildings that may be appropriate for redevelopment. On the one hand, these uses and buildings may provide low rent opportunities for small local retail, service, and office users, and may be appreciated by residents regardless of whether or not they frequent these businesses. While most parcels are tenanted, with low vacancy rates, these parcels are underutilized and could present an opportunity for higher-density residential development. To strengthen the nodes identified in the South El Camino Guidelines, staff recommends concentrating mixed-use development in these locations. Along the corridor, between nodes, staff envisions allowing 100% housing projects. Many of these properties, however, are subject to the retail preservation ordinance, which may impede housing redevelopment. Accordingly, staff recommends a nexus study be prepared to establish a fee that may be paid in-lieu of replacing retail on site (i.e., in-lieu of the Retail Preservation Ordinance). This fee would help to establish a fund to support small retail business development, retention and tenant improvements. The ability to waive the retail preservation requirement for market rate housing between the South El Camino Real nodes would not be allowed (except as already authorized by ordinance) until the in-lieu fee and related small business improvement program were established. Additional Considerations Included with this recommendation are two concepts to further incentivize housing and staff seeks the Commission’s feedback on whether to include these provisions in the draft ordinance to the City Council. Increase Affordable Housing Density and Height Downtown To further incentivize affordable housing development in high-amenity transit-oriented locations, an additional FAR increase and/or 11-foot height bonus would allow for an additional floor of residential development and may provide a real incentive to complete a deal for a site that is appropriate for development. Eliminate Downtown Commercial Land Uses Above the Ground Floor From Participating in the In-lieu Parking Program Non-residential uses have the option of paying into the Downtown Parking Assessment District in-lieu of providing parking on site (at a rate of $70,094/space). Given the high cost of land and the value of office lease rates, developers often choose to pay into the District and maximize their leasable area. Residential uses do not have this option; moreover, they likely cannot afford the per space rate, as it is currently set. Eliminating the option for office developments to pay an in-lieu fee for commercial uses above the ground floor would require onsite parking for those uses. Staff would recommend the in- lieu fee remain available for ground floor retail and retail like uses, especially in districts where the city is requiring ground floor retail through the GF combining district or as required by the retail preservation ordinance. Staff will also recommend to the Council that a policy review of City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 18 the in-lieu parking program to align the historical application of this provision to the code language, or seek other policy changes to the in-lieu parking program. While this is unlikely to be a popular concept for commercial developers Downtown, this concept is viewed and important to level the playing field for housing development versus office development. Environmental Review The City Council certified a Final EIR (http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/08/PaloAltoCompPlanFEIR_Aug2017.pdf) on November 13, 2017 to analyze potential impacts associated with the updated Comprehensive Plan. The 2018 Comprehensive Plan Implementation and Housing Ordinance will be evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) once a draft ordinance is prepared. It is anticipated that the Ordinance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its Final EIR. At this time, no substantially greater or more severe impacts are anticipated and no development is proposed, beyond what is allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. Next Steps it is anticipated that the PTC will make a recommendation on the draft ordinance at its next meeting (October 10th) and the City Council will consider the ordinance on November 26th. Report Author & Contact Information PTC6 Liaison & Contact Information Jean Eisberg, Consultant Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (415) 841-3539 (650) 329-2679 jean@lexingtonplanning.com jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Figure 1 - Commercial Mixed Use Zoning Districts (PDF) • Figure 2 - El Camino Real: Retail Mixed Use Nodes and Residential Corridors (PDF) 6 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org allisCt DonaldDrive EncinaGrandeDrive CerezaDrive LosRoblesAvenue VillaVera VerdosaDriveCampanaDriveSolanaDrive GeorgiaAve YnigoWay DriscollCt ngArthur' MaybellWay MaybellAvenue FrandonCt FloralesDrive GeorgiaAvenueAmarantaAvenue AmarantaCt Ki sCourt TermanDrive BakerAvenue VistaAvenue WisteriaLn PenaCt CoulombeDrive CherryOaksPl PomonaAvenueArastraderoRoad AbelAvenue ClemoAvenue VillaReal ElCaminoWay CurtnerAvenue VenturaAvenue Maclane EmersonStreet VenturaCt ParkBoulevard MagnoliaDrSouth ElCaminoReal CypressLane GlenbrookD FairmedeAvenue ArastraderoRoad IrvenCourt LosPalosCirLosPalosPl MaybellAvenue AltaMesaAve KellyWay LosPalosAvenue SuzanneDrive SuzanneDrive rive ElCaminoReal SuzanneCt LorabelleCt McKellarLane ElCaminoWay JamesRoad Maclane SecondStreet WilkieWay CaminoCt WestMeadowDrive ThainWay BarclayCtVictoriaPlace InterdaleWay WestCharlestonRoad TennesseeLaneWilkieWay CarolinaLaneTennesseeLane Park Boulevard WilkieCt DavenportWay AlmaStreet Roosev MonroeDrive WilkieWay Whitclem P l WhitclemDriveDuluthCircleEdleeAvenue Dinah'sCourt Cesano Court MonroeDrive MillerAvenue WhitclemWy WhitclemCt FerneAvenue BenLomondDrive FairfieldCourt FerneAvenue PonceDrive HemlockCourt FerneCourt AlmaStreet MonroeDrive SanAntonioRoad NitaAvenue RuthelmaAvenue DarlingtonCt EastCharlestonRoad LundyLane NewberryCt ParkBoulevard GeorgeHoodLn AlmaStreet eltCircle LinderoDrive WrightPlace StarrKingCircle ShastaDrive MackayDrive Diablo Court ScrippsAvenue ScrippsCourt NelsonDrive TiogaCourt CreeksideDrive GreenmeadowWay BenLomondDrive ParksideDrive DixonPlace ElyPlace DakeAvenue FerneAvenue SanAntonioCourt(Private) ChristopherCourt CalcaterraPlace ElyPlace ElyPlace AdobePlace NelsonCourt ByronStreet KeatsCourt MiddlefieldRoad DuncanPlace CarlsonCourt DuncanPlac eMumfordPlace EastCharlestonRoad SanAntonioRoad EastMeadowDrive EmersonStreet Court BryantStreet RooseveltCircle RamonaStreet CarlsonCircle RedwoodCircle South LeghornStreet MontroseAvenue Maplewood CharlestonCt EastCharlestonRoad SeminoleWay SutherlandDriveNelsonDrive ElCapitanPlace FabianStreet LomaVerdeAvenue BrysonAvenue MidtownCourt CowperStreet GaryCourt WaverleyStreet SouthCourt BryantStreetRamonaStreet AlmaStreet CoastlandDrive ColoradoAvenue ByronStreet MiddlefieldRoad GasparCourt MorenoAvenue Coastland Drive ElCarmeloAvenue RosewoodD CampesinoAvenue DymondCt MartinsenCt RamonaStreet BryantStreet TowleWay TowlePlace WellsburyCt AvalonCourt FlowersLane MackallWay LomaVerdeAvenue KiplingStreet CowperStreet SouthCourt WaverleyStreetElVeranoAvenue WellsburyWay La MiddlefieldRoad StClaireDrive AlgerDrive AshtonAvenue StMichaelDrive StMichaelDrive Maureen Avenue CowperCourt RambowDrive EastMeadowDrive AshtonCourt MurdochDriveCowperStreet MurdochCt StMichaelCourt MayCourt MayviewAvenue MiddlefieldRoad EnsignWay BibbitsDrive GailenCtGailenAvenue GroveAvenue SanAntonioRoad CommercialStreet IndustrialAvenue BibbitsDrive EastCharlestonRoad FabianWay T EastMeadowDrive GroveAvenue ChristineDrive CorinaWay RossRoad CorinaWay LouisRoad NathanWay TransportStreet OrtegaCourt EastMeadowDrive yneCourt alisman LomaVerdeAvenue AllenCourt RossCourt LomaVerdePl AmesAvenue RichardsonCourt HollyOakDrive AmesAvenue CorkOakWay MiddlefieldRoad AmesCt AmesAvenue RossRoad RorkeWay RorkeWay StoneLaneToyonPlaceTorreyaCourt LupineAvenue ThornwoodDrive DriftwoodDrive TalismanDrive ArbutusAvenueRossRoad LouisRoad AspenWayEvergreenDrive EastMeadowDrive CorporationWayElwell Court JaniceWay EastMeadowCircle EastMeadowCircle GreerRoad BayshoreFreeway rive EllsworthPlaceSanCarlosCourt WintergreenWay SutterAvenue SutterAvenue ClaraDrive PriceCourtSternAvenue ColoradoAvenue RandersCt RossRoad SycamoreDrive SevysonCt StellingDrive RossRoad DavidAvenue MurrayWay StellingDriveStellingCt ManchesterCourt KennethDrive ThomasDriveGreerRoad StocktonPlaceVernonTerraceLouis Road JaniceWay ThomasDriveKenneth D riveLomaVerdeAvenue CliftonCourtElbridgeWay ClaraDrive BautistaCourt StocktonPlace MorrisDrive MadduxDrive PiersCt LouisRoad MoragaCt OldPageMillRoad Coyote HillRoad PorterDrive HillviewAvenue HanoverStreet FoothillExpressway MirandaAvenue StanfordAvenue AmherstStreet ColumbiaStreetBowdoinStreet DartmouthStreet HanoverStreet CollegeAvenue CaliforniaAvenue HanoverStreet RamosWay(Private) PageMillRoad HansenWay HanoverStreet MirandaA LagunaCt BarronAvenueJosinaAvenue KendallAvenue TippawingoSt JulieCt MataderoAvenue IlimaWay IlimaCourt LagunaOaksPl CarlitosCt LaCalleLagunaAvenue ElCerrit ParadiseWay RobleRidge(Private) LaMataWay ChimalusDrive MataderoAvenue oRoad Paul Avenue KendallAvenue WhitsellAvenue BarronAvenue LosRoblesAvenue LagunaWay ShaunaLane LaParaAvenueSanJudeAvenue ElCentroStreet TimlottLaJenniferWay MagnoliaDrNorth LaDonnaAvenue LosRobles Avenue Rinc ManzanaLane onCircle CrosbyPl GeorgiaAvenue HubbarttDrive WillmarDrive DonaldDrive LaParaAvenue SanJudeAvenue MagnoliaDrive MilitaryWay ArbolDrive OrmeStreet FernandoAvenue MataderoAvenue LambertAvenue HansenWay ElCaminoReal MargaritaAvenue MataderoAvenue WiltonAvenue OxfordAvenue HarvardStreet CaliforniaAvenue WellesleyStreet PrincetonStreetOberlinStreet CornellStreet CambridgeAvenue CollegeAvenueWilliamsStreet YaleStreet StauntonCourtOxfordAvenueElCaminoReal ChurchillAvenue ParkBoulevard ParkAvenue EscobitaAvenue ChurchillAvenue SequoiaAvenue MariposaAvenueCastillejaAvenue MiramonteAvenue MadronoAvenue PortolaAvenue ManzanitaAvenue ColeridgeAvenue LelandAvenue StanfordAvenue BirchStreet AshStreet LowellAvenue AlmaStreet TennysonAvenue GrantAvenue SheridanAvenue JacarandaLane ElCaminoReal ShermanAvenue AshStreet PageMillRoad MimosaLane ChestnutAvenue PortageAvenue PepperAvenue OliveAvenue AcaciaAvenue EmersonStreet ParkBoulevard OrindaStreet BirchStreet AshStreet PageMillRoad AshStreet ParkBoulevard CollegeAvenue CambridgeAvenue NewMayfieldLane BirchStreet CaliforniaAvenue ParkBoulevard NogalLane RinconadaAvenue SantaRitaAvenue ParkBoulevard SealeAvenue WashingtonAvenue SantaRitaAvenue WaverleyStree BryantStreet HighStreet EmersonStreet ColoradoAvenueStreet EmersonStreet RamonaStreet BryantStreet SouthCourt ElDoradoAvenueAlmaStreet AlmaStreet HighStreet t Emerson WaverleyOaks WashingtonAvenue BryantStreet SouthCourt WaverleyStreet EmersonStreetNevadaAvenue NorthCaliforniaAvenue SantaRitaAvenue RamonaStreet HighStreet NorthCaliforniaAvenue OregonExpressway MarionAvenue RamonaStreet ColoradoAvenue WaverleyStreet KiplingStreet SouthCourt CowperStreet AntonCourtNevadaAvenue TassoStreet TassoStreet OregonAvenue MarionPl WebsterStreet MiddlefieldRoad RossRoad WarrenWay ElCajonWay EmbarcaderoRoadPrimroseWayIrisWay TulipLane TulipLane GarlandDrive LouisRoad GreerRoad MortonStreet GreerRoad HamiltonAvenue HilbarLaneAlannahCt Edge RhodesDrive Marshall Drive FieldinMorenoAvenueMarshallDrive DennisDrive AgnesWay OregonAvenue BlairCourt SantaAnaStreet ElsinoreDriveElsinoreCourt ElCajonWay Greer Road CaliforniaAvenue gDrive ColoradoAvenue SycamoreDrive AmarilloAvenue VanAukenCircle BruceDrive ColonialLaneMorenoAvenue CeliaDrive BurnhamWay GreerRoad IndianDrive ElmdalePl C TanlandDrive MorenoAvenue AmarilloAvenue WestBayshoreRoad SandraPlace ClaraDrive ColoradoAvenue GreerRoad ColoradoAvenueSimkinsCourt Otterson Ct HigginsPlaceLawrenceLane MadduxDrive GenevieveCt MetroCircle MoffettCircleGreerRoad East BayshoreRoad ardinalWay Santa CatalinaStreet ArrowheadWayAztecWay ChabotTerrace OregonAvenue CarmelDrive SierraCourt StFrancisDrive WestBayshoreRoad TanlandDrive East B ayshore Road woodDrive EdgewoodDrive WildwoodLane IvyLane EastBayshoreRoad StFrancisDrive WildwoodLane WatsonCourt LauraLane SandalwoodCt O'BrineLane(Private) EmbarcaderoRoad FaberPlace EmbarcaderoRoad GengRoad EmbarcaderoWay EmbarcaderoRoad SandHillRoad QuarryRoad WelchRoad ArboretumRoad QuarryRoad SandHillRoad HomerAvenue Lane8West MedicalFoundation Way Lane7West Lane7East EmbarcaderoRoad EncinaAvenue ElCaminoReal UrbanLane Wells Avenue ForestAvenue HighStreet EmersonStreet ChanningAvenue AlmaStreet AlmaStreet PaloAltoA ElCaminoReal venue MitchellLane HawthorneAvenue EverettAvenue LyttonAvenue Lane15E HighStreet AlmaStreet BryantStreet Lane6E Lane11W Lane21 HighStreet GilmanStreet HamiltonAvenue UniversityAvenue BryantCourt Lane30 FlorenceStreet KiplingStreet TassoStreet CowperStreet RuthvenAvenue HawthorneAvenue Lane 3 3 PaloAltoAvenue EverettAvenue PoeStreet WaverleyStreet TassoStreet CowperStreet PaloAltoAvenue WebsterStreet EverettCourt LyttonAvenue ByronStreet FultonStreetMiddlefield Road ChurchillAvenue LowellAvenue SealeAvenueTennysonAvenue MelvilleAvenue CowperStreet TassoStreet WebsterStreet ByronStreet NorthCaliforniaAvenue ColeridgeAvenue WaverleyStreet BryantStreet EmersonStreet KelloggAvenue AlmaStreet KingsleyAvenue PortalPlace RossRoad OregonAvenue GarlandDrive LaneAWest LaneBWest LaneBEast Lane DWest Lane59East WhitmanCourt KelloggAvenueEmbarcaderoRoad KingsleyAvenue LincolnAvenueAddisonAvenue LincolnAvenue ForestAvenue DowningLane HomerAvenue LaneDEast Lane39 Lane56 HamiltonAvenue WebsterStreet WaverleyStreet KiplingStreet BryantStreetRamonaStreet AddisonAvenue ScottStreet ByronStreet Palo HaleStreet SenecaStreet LyttonAvenue GuindaStreet PaloAltoAvenue FultonStreetMiddlefieldRoad ForestAvenue WebsterStreet KelloggAvenue MiddlefieldRoad ByronStreet WebsterStreet CowperStreet TassoStreet CowperStreet AddisonAvenue LincolnAvenue BoyceAvenue ForestAvenueHamiltonAvenue HomerAvenue GuindaStreet MiddlefieldRoad ChanningAvenue AltoAvenue ChaucerStreet ChaucerStreet UniversityAvenue ChanningAvenue AddisonAvenue LincolnAvenue RegentPl GuindaStreetLincolnAvenue FultonStreet MelvilleAvenue ByronStreet KingsleyAvenue MelvilleAvenue HamiltonAvenueHamiltonCourt ForestAvenueForestCt MarloweStreet MapleStreet PalmStreet SomersetPl PitmanAvenue FifeAvenue ForestAvenue DanaAvenue LincolnAvenue UniversityAvenue ColeridgeAvenue LowellAvenue FultonStreet CowperStreet TennysonAvenue SealeAvenue NorthamptonDrive WestGreenwichPl MiddlefieldRoad NewellRoadGuindaStreet EastGreenwichPl SouthamptonDrive WebsterStreet KirbyPl KentPlace TevisPl MartinAvenue CenterDrive HarrietStreet Wilson S t r e e t CedarStreet HarkerAvenue GreenwoodAvenue HutchinsonAvenue ChanningAvenue HopkinsAvenue EmbarcaderoRoad AshbyDrive DanaAvenue HamiltonAvenue PitmanAvenue SouthwoodDrive WestCrescentDrive CrescentDrive UniversityAvenue CenterDrive EastCrescen ArcadiaPlace LouisaCourt NewellPl SharonCt ErstwildCourt WalterHaysDrive WalnutDrive NewellRoad ParkinsonAvenue PineStreet MarkTwainStreet LouisRoadBarbaraDrive PrimroseWay IrisWay EmbarcaderoRoad WalterHaysDrive LoisLane JordanPl LoisLane HeatherLane BretHarteStreet Stanley W ay DeSotoDriveDeSotoDrive AlesterAvenue WalterHaysDrive ChanningAvenue IrisWay tDrive DanaAvenue HamiltonAvenueNewellRoadKingsLane Edgewood Drive IslandDrive JeffersonDrive JacksonDrive PatriciaLaneMadisonWay EdgewoodDrive RamonaStreet AddisonAvenueChanningAvenue WaverleyStreet TennysonAvenue SealeAvenue MiddlefieldRoad ByronStreet WebsterStreet MarionAvenue WelchRoad SedroLane PeralLane McGregorWay MonroeDrive SilvaAvenue SilvaCourt MillerCourt BriarwoodWay DriscollPlace PaulsenLn CommunityLane Lane15E Court MadelineCt DavidCt Green M a n o r OregonExpressway OregonExpressway SheridanAvenue PageMillRoad PageMillRoad FoothillExpressway MirandaAvenue FoothillExpressway CerritoWay EmersonStreet Lane 2 0 W Lane20E OregonExpresswayUniversityAvenue Jacob'sCt CalTrainROW CalTrainROW CalTrainROW CalTrainROW EmersonStreet WaverleyStreet KiplingStreet ClarkWay DurandWay SandhillRoad SwainWayClarkWay MosherWay CharlesMarxWay OrchardLane VineyardLane OakRoad SandHillRoad SandHillRoad SandHillRoad Lane66 BryantStreet RamonaStreet BlakeWilburDrive WestCharlestonRoad CampusDriveWest BayshoreFreeway BayshoreFreeway BayshoreFreeway WestBayshoreRoad EastBayshoreRoad EastBayshoreRoad EastBayshoreRoad WestBayshoreRoad EastBayshoreRoad BayshoreFreeway BayshoreFreeway WestBayshoreRoad BayshoreFreeway BayshoreFreeway PaloRoad ShoppingCenterWay ShoppingCenterWay ShoppingCenterWay LondonPlaneWay Plum Lane SweetOliveWay PearLane CampusDriveWest Lane66 LaSelvaDrive GroveCt StanfordAvenue Lane12WLane5E LasuenStreet SerraMall EscondidoRoad OlmsteadRoad SerraStreet OlmsteadRoad PhillipsRoad PistachePlace SantaYnezStreet LaneB AlvaradoRow CampusDriveEast SanJuanStreet LaneC ElDoradoAvenue ClaraDrive BellviewDr EverettAvenue HomerAvenue LaCalle SanAntonioRoad MataderoAve ColoradoPl LosRoblesAvenue TimlottCt VistaVilla PaloAltoAvenue Lane LaDonnaAvenue CassWay KennethDrive FabianWay PageMillRoad MiddlefieldRoadChristineDrive LouisRoad EastCharlestonRoad BayshoreFreeway BayshoreFreew ChimalusDrive HanoverStreet CommuityLane GreenwoodAvenue HarkerAvenue ParkinsonAvenue Avenue MaplewoodPl MackayDrive SantaTeresaLane ByronStreet VarianWay BowdoinLane ArguelloWay AlmaVillageCircle AlmaVillageLane E m ba r c a de r o El C a m i n o R e al University Oregon PageMill Alma Arastradero E M e a d o w Foothill Middlefield S an d Hill SanAntonio MataderoCreek CharlestonSlough MataderoCreek SanFrancisquitoCreek SanFrancisquitoCreek Matadero Creek BarronCreek BarronCreek AdobeCreek AdobeCreek AdobeCreek AdobeCreek E mi l y R e n z e l W e t l a n d s Ho I s l a M u n d y M a r s h Adobe Creek D u c k P o nd Coast C Foreb Matadero Creek MataderoCreek A d o b e C r e e k DryCreek D ry C r e ek Lagunita Lake San Francisquito Creek Francisquito Creek PF PF PF PF RP(L) PF RP(L) CC(2) PF RP RP RMD(NP) RP RP-5 PF(AS3) CS(AS1) R-1 RP-5(D) PF(R) PF(R) RM-15 R-2 R-2 RM-15 RM-30 CN RM-30 R-2 PF(R) CC(2)(R) RM-30 CC(2) PF R-2 PF(R) CC(2)(R) PC-4127 PF(R) R-1 CC(2)(R) R-2 CC(2) (R)(P) RM-30 PF RM-40 R-2 PF RM-15 RM-15 R-1 CS PFRP(L) CS RM-30 RM-30 RM-15 RE PC CNRM-30 RM-15 PF PF CS(H) RM-30 R-1(10000) CS R-1 R-1 RM-30R-1(10000) PF PC-2930 R-1(S) RM-30 R-1 PF(WH)CN CC RM-40 CC(2)(R) CN PC-2224 RM-15 R-2 PF PF PC-4268 PC-2293 RM-40 PC-4354 PC-4463 PC-3028 PC-4637 PF RM-30 RM-30 PC-2952 RM-30 PF RM-15 PF R-2 PF RM-30 RM-30 PF RM-15 R-1 RM-30R-2 RM-30 R-2 CS RM-15 RM-30(L) GM GM RM-30 RM-15 CS CS RM-40 ROLM GM CS R-1 RP R-1 R-2 R-2RM-15 RM-15 R-1 CN CN (GF/P) RM-40 HD PC-1992MOR MORRM-30(D) CS CC R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 RP R-2 RM-15 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-1(10000) R-1 R-1(10000)PF R-2 PC-2967PC- 3266 PF PFPF RM-15 HD CN R-1 PC- 4182 PC-3707 PC-4283 PF RT-35 PC- 4389 CS CS PC-4465 CS CD-C (P)R-1(10000) RM-30AMF (MUO) DHS R-2 CD-S(P)AMF PC-4612 R-1 PF CC PF PF PC-4426 CC CN(L)(GF/P) PF R-1 RM-30 PFPF RM-30 PC-4063 PC-3872 PF PF PC-2130 PFCD-C(P) PC-4374 PF PF PF CD-C (P) CD-C (P) CD-N(P) PF PC-3111 PC-3007 PC-3974 PF PF PC-4262 PC-4243 PC-4195 RM-15 RMD(NP) RM- 40 PC-3429 CD-N(P) CD-C(GF)(P) RM-40CD-C(P) CD-C(P) PFAMF DHS DHS PF PC-4611 CC(L) PC-4053 RMD (NP) RMD(NP) RM-30 PF PC-2049 PC-3102 R-2 RM-15 R-1 RM-30 PC-4339 RM-30 RM-30 PF PC-4052PF PC-2545 R-2 RM-40 PC-2145 RM-30 PC-2968 PC-3995 R-2 PF R-1 R-1 RP(AS2) CN R-1 (S) RM-30 PC-2656 R-2 R-1 CN RM-15 RM-30(L) PC-2218 PC-5116 PF R-1 PC-3023 RM-15 PF PC-4511 R-1 PC-3041 RM-15PF RM-30 PC-5034 RM-30 CS CS(H) RM-15 PC-3133 RM-40 RM-30 PC-4190 RM-40 RM-30CS CS(L) R-1(S) R-1 PC-4448R-1 CS(L) PC-3036CS CS RM-30 RM-15 R-1 CS PF RM-15 CS(H) R-1(10000) RM-15 R-1(8000) R-1 R-1 R-1(S) PF CS(L) RM-15 RM-30 PC-3517 PF CN RM-15 R-1 PF R-1 ROLM(E)(D)(AD) ROLM(E)(D)(AD)ROLM(E)(D)(AD) PC-3753 R-1(S) PC-4782CS PC-4753 RT-50 CD-S(P) RT-50 RT-35 RT-35 R-2 RT-50 RT-50 CC(2)(P) R-1(S) GM GM(AD) CS(AD) CS CS CS(AD) CS PC-4779 CS(AD) PC-4831 PC-1643 RMD RM-30 CD-C (P) PC-2649 PC-4296 RM-15 PC-4173 PC-4436 PC- 3437 RM-15 RM-30PC-8659 PC-2836 PC-2152 R-1PF R-1 R-2 RM-15RM-30 R-1(10000) PC-3571 PF R-2 RM-30 R-2 R-2 RM-15 R-1(S) R-1 R-1(10000) PF PF RM-30 RM-15 RM-30 RM-15 PC-3405 RM-30 PC-4956 PF R-1(8000) R-1(7000) R-2 R-1(7000) R-1 R-1 PF RM-15 PC-3623 R-2 CS PF PC-3693 GM PF CS(AD) RM-30 R-1(8000)(S) R-1(8000) ROLM PF R-1(7000)(S) PC-2711 ROLM PF CS R-1 RM-30 RM-30 ROLM(D)(AD) R-1(8000) PC-2236 PC-2640 RM-15 PC-1417 PC-4843 RM-15 R-1(7000) R-2PF(D) RM-15 PC-2744 R-1(8000)(S) R-1(8000) GMR-1(8000) ROLM PF CN (GF/P) PC-2197 R-2 R-1 GM R-2 RM-15 RM-30 RM-15 PC-3183 RM-15 R-2 PF PF PC-1752 PC-1889 ROLM R-1 PF(D) RM-15 PF PC-3726 R-2 PF(D)R-1 PF PF ROLM PC-3020 PC-2962GM PF PF(D) PF ROLM(E)(D)(AD) ROLM(E)(D)(AD) PC-4847 PC-3688 CS(D) PC-4846 CN PC-4917 PC-4918 CD-C(GF)(P) PC-4973 R-2 CN (R) PC-5069 CN RM-15 CS(L)(D) RM-40 PTOD CC(2)(R) CC(2)(R) PTOD(R) PC-5158 PC-5150 CS(D) CD-C (P)CD-C(GF)(P) CD-S(GF)(P) PF(D) R-1 (7000)R-1(7000)(S) CC(2) CC(2) CC(2) R-1 (7000) This map is a product of theCity of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend PTOD Eligible Area CC2 Zoning District CD Zoning District with GF Combining District CS and CN Zoning Districts along ECR City Jurisdictional Limits abc Zone District Labels Zone Districts 0' 600'1200' Zo n i n g D i s t r i c t s Ci t y o f P a l o A l t o CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altorrivera, 2018-08-29 12:07:39, CD CS CN CC2 ZoningDistricts (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\rrivera.mdb) PF PF PFPF RP(L) PF C C(2) PF R P R PRMD(NP) R P PF (A S3)CS (A S1) R -1 PF(R) PF(R) RM-15 R-2 R-2 RM-30 C N RM-30 R-2 PF(R) CC(2)(R) RM-30 C C(2) P F R-2 PF(R) CC(2)(R) PC-4127 PF(R) CC(2)(R) R-2 CC(2) (R)(P)RM-30 PF R M-40 R-2 PF R M-15 R-2 PC-2666 RM-15 R-1 C S PF RP(L) CS RM-30 R M-30 R M-15 R E PC-2666 R-1(10000) C N R M-30 R M-15 P F PF CS(H)RM-30 R -1(10000) R P C S R E RM-40 R-1(20000) R-1 R-1 R M-30 R-1(10000) P F PC-2930 R-1(S) R M-30 R -1 PF (WH) CN CC RM-40 CC(2)(R) CN PC-2224 RM-15 R-2 PF PF PC-4268 PC-2293 R M-40 PC-4354 PC-4463 PC-3028 PC-4637 PF RM-30 RM-30 PC-2952 RM-30 PF R M-15 P F R-2 PF RM-30 R M-30 P F RM-15 R-1 RM-30 R-2 R M-30 R-2 CS RM-15 RM-30(L) GM GM RM-30 RM-15 C S C S RM-40 R O L M G M C S R-1 R P R -1 R-2 R-2 M-15 CN C N (G F/P) R-2 R P R-1 R-1(10000) CN(L)(GF/P) RP (A S2) CN RM-30 PC-2656 R-2 R-1 C N RM-15 RM-30(L) PC-2218 PC-5116 P F R -1 PC-3023 R M-15 PF PC-4511 R-1 PC-3041 R M-15 PF RM-30 PC-5034 R M-30 CS C S(H) RM-15 PC-3133 RM-40 RM-30 PC- 4190 RM-40 RM-30 C S CS(L) R-1(S) R-1 PC-4448 R -1 CS(L) PC-3036 CS CS RM-30 RM-15 R-1 CS PF R M-15 C S(H) R-1(10000) RM-15 R-1(8000) R-1 R-1 R-1(S) PF CS(L) RM-15 RM-30 PC-3517 P F CN RM-15 R-1 PC-4753 CC(2)(P) G MGM(AD) CS(AD) CS CS CS (A D) PC-4831 RMD PF R M R M-15 R M-30 R M-15 PC-3405 R M-30 PC-4956 P F R-1(8000) R-1(7000) R-2 R-1 R-1 PF R-2 R-1(8 0 00)(S) R-1(8000) PF R-1(7000)(S) RM-30 R M-30 R-1(80 PC-2236 PC-1 RM- 15 R-1(7000) R-2 PF(D) R M-15 RR-1(8 C N (G F/P) PC- 2197 R-2R-1 R M-15 PFR-2 C NCN (R) PC-5069 C N R M-15 CS(L)(D) RM-40 PTO D CC(2)(R) CC(2)(R)PTOD(R)CS(D) R-1 (7000) CC(2)CC(2) CC(2) R-1 (7000) MoanaCourt Wallis Ct Donald Drive Encina Grande Drive Cereza D rive Los R obles Avenue Villa Vera Verdosa Drive Campana Drive Solana Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way Driscoll Ct ng Arthur'Maybell Way Maybell Avenue Frandon Ct Florales D rive Georgia Avenue Amaranta Avenue Amaranta Ct MirandaGreen 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 Arastrade ro RoadIrven Court Los Palos Cir LosPalosPl Maybell Avenue Alta Mesa Ave Kelly Way Los 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 CtWes t Mea d o w Drive Thain Way Barclay Ct Victoria Place Interdale Way West Charleston Road Tennessee LaneWilkie Way Carolina Lane Tennessee Lane Park Boulevard Wilkie Ct Davenport Way Alma Street Roosev Monroe Drive Wilkie Way Whitclem Pl Whitclem Drive Duluth Circle Edlee Avenue Dinah's Court Cesano Court Monroe DriveMiller Avenue Whitclem Wy Whitclem Ct Ferne Avenue Ben Lomond Drive Ferne Avenue Ferne Court Alma Street Monroe DriveRuthelma Avenue Darlington Ct East Charleston Road LundyLane Newberry Ct Park Boulevard George Hood Ln Alma Street eltCircle LinderoDrive Wright Place Starr King Circle Shasta Drive Mackay DriveDiablo Court Scripps Avenue Scripps Court Nelson Drive Tioga Court Creekside Drive Greenmeadow Way Ben Lomond Drive Parkside Drive Dixon Place Ely Place Dake Aven Ferne Avenue CalcaterraPlace Ely Place Ely Place Adobe PlaceNelson Court ByronSKeats CourtMiddlefield Road Duncan Place Carlson Court Duncan Place Mumford Place East Charleston Road Antonio Road East Mead o w Drive Emerson Street Court Bryant St reet RooseveltCircle Ramona Street CarlsonCircleRedwoodCircle S outh eewood Charleston Ct East Charles Seminole Way Sutherland Drive Nelson Drive El Capitan Place Loma Verde Avenue Bryson Avenue Midtown Court Cowper Street Gary Court Waverley Street South Court Bryant Street Ramona Street Alma Street Coastla Colorado Avenue Byron Street Middlefield Road Gaspar Court Moreno Avenue El Carmelo Avenue Campesino Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Ramona Street Bryant Street Towle Way Towle Place Wellsbury Ct Avalon Court FlowersLane Mackall Way Loma Verde Avenue KiplingStreet Cowper Street South Court Waverley Street El Verano Avenue Wellsbury Way La Middlefield Road St Claire Drive Alger Drive Ashton Avenue St Michael Drive St Michael Drive Maureen Avenue Cowper Court Rambow Drive East Meadow Drive Ashton Court Murdoch Drive Cowper Street Murdoch Ct St Michael Court MayCourt Middlefield Road Ensign Way Grove Avenue East Meadow Driv yneCourt Holly O Am e s A v e n u e Middlefield Road Toyon Place Torreya Court Ellsworth Plac San Carlos Cou Sutter Avenue Colorado Avenu Porter Drive Hillview Avenue Hanover Street Foothill ExpresswayMiranda Avenue Stanford Avenue Amherst Street Columbia Street Bowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Page Mill Road Hansen Way Hanover Street ero Road Miranda Avenue Avenue Hill Avenue Manuela Avenue Miranda Avenue Laguna Ct Barron Avenue Josina Avenue Kendall Avenue Tippawingo St Julie Ct Matadero Avenue Ilima Way Ilima Court Laguna Oa ks Pl Carlitos Ct La Calle Laguna Avenue El Cerrit Paradise Way Roble Ridge (Private) La MataWay Chim alu s Drive Matadero Avenue oRoad Paul AvenueKendall AvenueWhitsell Avenue Barron Avenue Los Robles Avenue Laguna Way ShaunaLane La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue El Centro Street Timlott La Jennifer Way Magnolia Dr North La Donna Avenue LosRobles Avenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle MesaCourt Crosby Pl Georgia Avenue Hubbartt Drive Willmar Drive Donald Drive Arastradero Road Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue 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 A venue Wilto n Avenu e Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California A venue Wellesley Street Princeton Street Oberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College A venue Williams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxfo rd A venue El Camino Real Leland Avenue Stanford Ave nue Birch Street Ash Street Alma Street Grant Avenue Sheridan Avenue Jacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Ave nue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda StreetBirch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard College Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield LaneBirch Street California Ave nue 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 Avenue Street Emerson Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado Avenue Alma Street Alma Street HighStreet t Emerson Waverley Oaks Washington Avenue Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson Street Nevada Avenue North California Ave nue 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 Court Nevada Avenue Tasso StreetTasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Pl Webster Street Middlefield Road Seale Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street Portal Place Garland Drive Seale Avenu W Seale Avenue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Mario Sedro Lane Peral Lane McGregor Way Monroe Drive Silva Avenue Silva Court Mille r C o u r t Briarwood Wa Driscoll Place Madeline Ct Arroyo Ct Green Manor Oregon Expressway Sheridan Avenue Page Mill Road Avenue Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Foothill Expressw Cerrito Way Miranda Avenue Jacob's Ct CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW CalTrain ROW Lane 66 West Charleston Road Lane 66 La Selva Drive Stanford Avenue OlmsteadRoad El Dorado Avenue La Calle Matadero Ave Los Robles Ave nue Timlott Ct Vista Villa Lane La Donna Avenue Cass Way Page Mill Road Middlefield RoadChristine Drive Chim alus Drive Hanover Street AvenueMaplewood Pl Mackay Drive Alma Village Circle Alma Village Lane 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 Zone Districts Corridor Residential Areas Retail Mixed Use Nodes abc Zone District Labels Transportation Stations 0'1600' S o u t h El C a m i n o R e a l No d e s a n d C o r r i d o r 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 RRivera, 2018-09-19 11:27:05ECR Nodes JE (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) Alma St Pa g e M i l l Ca l i f o r n i a W C h a r l e s t o n