Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-11-13 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: November 13, 2019 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. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments 2. Draft 2020 Meeting Schedule and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 3. Study Session Regarding Cohousing and Coliving With Presentations from Cohousing and/or Coliving Owners and/or Operators in the Bay Area, and Commissioner Discussion and Questions 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 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 4115 El Camino Real [18PLN-00238]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a one lot Tentative Map to Divide an Existing 0.36 Acre Parcel Into Seven Residential Condominiums and two Commercial and two Office Condominiums. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted by the Director of Planning & Community Environment on January 7, 2019. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP at sahsing@m-group.us _______________________ 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. 5. Discuss the Concept Plan Alternatives for Improvements to the San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road Intersection and Recommend that City Council Direct Staff to Complete Final Design Plans, Environmental Analysis, Specifications and Estimates for Construction for the Preferred Alternative Concept Plan 6. Consider and Recommend to Council a Proposal to Designate a New Priority Development Area in Downtown Palo Alto and Designating Priority Conservation Areas in the Foothills and Baylands Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Agenda Items Adjournment _______________________ 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 William Riggs Vice Chair Michael Alcheck Commissioner Ed Lauing Commissioner Giselle Roohparvar Commissioner Doria Summa Commissioner Carolyn Templeton 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 & Development Services 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 # 10834) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 11/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: 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 Vinh Nguyen (Vinhloc.Nguyen@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: November 13, 2019 PTC Meeting Schedule and Assignments (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 4 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2019 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2019 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/30/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/13/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/27/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 3/4/2019 11:00AM Community Meeting Room Special 3/13/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Roohparvar 3/27/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/10/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/24/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 5/08/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs 5/29/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 6/12/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 6/26/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 7/10/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 7/31/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 8/14/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Asher Waldfogel 8/28/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/11/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/25/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 10/09/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 10/30/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/13/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/11/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2019 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Doria Summa Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Giselle Roohparvar Doria Summa July August September October November December Giselle Roohparvar Doria Summa Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Giselle Roohparvar 1.a Packet Pg. 5 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2019 Tentative Future Agenda September 5, 2019 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics December 11, 2019 • 3265 El Camino Real: Appeal on Preliminary Parcel Map • Study Session for Updated Inclusionary Below Market Rate Requirements To Be Scheduled: Topics Co-Working Office Model SB 50 Data Briefing 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 10855) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 11/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2020 PTC Meeting Dates Title: Draft 2020 Meeting Schedule and Assignments From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission review and provide feedback regarding the Draft 2020 Meeting Schedule and Assignments. PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Rachael Tanner, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2167 rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Draft 2020 Meeting Schedule and Assignments (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 7 Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2020 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2019 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Notes 1/08/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 1/29/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/12/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/26/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/11/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 3/25/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/8/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/29/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/13/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 5/27/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 6/10/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 6/24/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/08/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/29/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/12/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/26/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/9/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/30/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/14/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/28/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/11/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Veteran’s Day 11/25/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Day Before Thanksgiving 12/09/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/30/2020 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Day Before New Year’s Eve 2019 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June July August September October November December 2.a Packet Pg. 8 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 10848) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 11/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Study Session on Cohousing and Coliving Title: Study Session Regarding Cohousing and Coliving With Presentations from Cohousing and/or Coliving Owners and/or Operators in the Bay Area, and Commissioner Discussion and Questions From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) conduct a Study Session regarding Cohousing and Coliving featuring presentations from owners and/or operators of such housing communities in the Bay Area. No action will be taken. Background The terms cohousing and coliving refer to models of housing that emphasize establishing and nurturing community among households that may share one home or may share common facilities in a neighborhood of homes. The building, home, or neighborhood design may emphasize shared spaces, such as common kitchens, laundry facilities, outdoor space, recreational space, or other spaces that all members of the cohousing or coliving community can access. Cohousing and coliving communities also provide private space for each household. While design can play an important role in cohousing and coliving, the emphasis on building and sustaining meaningful relationships with fellow households sets these communities apart from other housing developments and living arrangements. Cohousing communities typically have individual single-family homes or apartment units for each household with shared community space. Coliving facilities are typically one home or apartment unit with private rooms for each member of the community. Some coliving facilities are larger multi-unit buildings that feature private dwelling space for each member, with shared cooking facilities and other shared amenities. The Cohousing Association of the United States reports that cohousing first emerged in Denmark; that the first cohousing in the US was completed in 1991; and that by 2008 more 3 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 than 113 cohousing communities were established in the United States. A cohousing community was recently constructed at 445 Calderon Avenue in Mountain View, California.1 This community features 19 flats and townhomes with 6,000 square feet of shared facilities. In the Bay Area and other major metropolitan areas in the United States, coliving has emerged as a tool to both provide more affordable housing, more flexible living arrangements, while also building community among residents. It should be noted, that different cohousing and coliving communities have created their own definitions. The above description identifies some of the common characteristics of cohousing and coliving communities. Additionally, many communities possess these characteristics and may not identify with the cohousing or coliving description. Discussion To learn more about cohousing and coliving, the Planning and Transportation Commission has invited two providers of coliving to share insights into the market trends, the operations of their communities, descriptions of the facilities they operate (unit sizes, amenities, etc.), enabling legislation at the state or local level, and the pros and cons of these living arrangements. The two providers are Starcity and Bungalow. Starcity Starcity defines coliving as “a new form of middle-income housing where renters share furnished communal living spaces in exchange for more affordable rent.” According to Starcity, “Affordability, convenience, and community are some of the main reasons why individuals are being drawn to Coliving as a viable and attractive urban housing solution.” Founded in 2016 in San Francisco, Starcity is an owner, operator, and developer of Coliving communities. Starcity's mission is to make great cities accessible to everyone by providing affordable, welcoming, and flexible housing solutions for the middle class. With active communities in San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles, Starcity is leveraging unique design, development and operational expertise to become the premier Coliving brand in the otherwise undifferentiated apartment business. Earlier this year, Starcity entitled 2 vertical developments in the SoMa neighborhood of San Francisco and Downtown San Jose respectively, the latter of which is the largest approved Coliving development in the country at 803 beds. Presenters and staff present from Starcity include Jon Dishotsky, CEO & Cofounder, and Eli Sokol, Senior Development Manager. Jon Dishotsky is CEO and Cofounder of Starcity. He grew up in Palo Alto and lived in a cohousing home with Stanford students and his family. He graduated from UC Davis with a Bachelor's in Managerial Economics and joined Cushman & Wakefield a few years before the recession (great timing!). He did over 3 million square feet of commercial real estate transactions primarily with 1 http://mountainviewcohousing.org/ 3 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 hyper-growth startups and in that experience, he found that housing affordability was a major problem in cities which led him to start Starcity. Eli Sokol is a Senior Development Manager at Starcity and oversees real estate development and entitlements at Starcity. His current projects include Starcity Minna and Starcity San Jose, 270-bed and 803-bed towers respectively that are among the largest approved purpose-built Coliving developments in the country. Prior to joining Starcity, Eli worked in commercial real estate in the Bay Area and New York City. He holds a Master of Design Studies in Real Estate from the Harvard Graduate School of Design and a Bachelor of Arts in Architecture from Washington University in St. Louis. Bungalow Bungalow is a co-living startup that is solving for the affordable housing and loneliness crisis impacting our nation. Bungalow pairs potential tenants who are otherwise priced out of major metropolitan cities with homeowners who own the existing, outdated housing supply, to solve a problem for both. Bungalow unlocks existing housing supply quicker and with less disruption that going through an entitlement process. Bungalow's residents consist of early career professionals, nurses, nannies, firefighters, etc., and are members of the communities in which they reside. Bungalow's homeowners own large, vacant homes that they are otherwise unable or unmotivated to procure tenants for. In addition to solving for the affordable housing problem, Bungalow also solves for the loneliness issue by creating community. Bungalow assists residents with meet-and-greets of potential roommates before signing a lease, hosts monthly events for the entire Bungalow community, and fosters housemate bonding through individualized home events and exercises. Moreover, each home comes furnished and includes WiFi, utilities, and housekeeping to ensure proper upkeep and maintenance. Presenters and staff present from Bungalow include Head of Field Operations Bryan Connolly, Bay Area General Manager Alex Canedo, and Head of Strategic Initiatives Ali Nichols. Bryan Connolly heads field operations for Bungalow. In this role, he is responsible for managing operations across all of our 10 markets nationally. Bryan is a West Point graduate and Army Special Operations Officer who recently graduated from Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley. He is a leader with international experience and a proven track record in project planning and execution, leadership, management, and training. Ali Nichols heads expansion and strategic initiatives for Bungalow. In this role, she is responsible for launching new cities for Bungalow, as well as spearheading the piloting of new initiatives. Prior to joining Bungalow, Ali had substantial experience working in various business strategy roles at Uber, IBM, and Boeing. 3 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Alex Canedo is Bungalow’s General Manager for the Bay Area. In this role, she is responsible for resident onboarding/off-boarding, creating community and day-to-day operations for the area. Prior to joining Bungalow, Alex held management roles at Castlight Health, and Jiff Inc. Environmental Review The item 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. As a discussion item there is no action to be taken. The discussion item is not a project under CEQA and is therefore exempt from CEQA. PTC Liaison, Report Author & Contact Information Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director (650) 329-2167 rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 12 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 10732) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 4115 El Camino Real: Tentative Condo Map Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 4115 El Camino Real [18PLN-00238]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a one lot Tentative Map to Divide an Existing 0.36 Acre Parcel Into Seven Residential Condominiums and two Commercial and two Office Condominiums. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted by the Director of Planning & Community Environment on January 7, 2019. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP at sahsing@m-group.us From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed Tentative Condominium Map to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The applicant proposes a condominium subdivision that would divide a single parcel into nine “airspace” condominiums. The map is associated with an approved three-story, mixed use development containing 16,725 square feet (SF) of floor area, including 7,848 SF of commercial and office floor area (two units) and seven residential units on a 0.36-acre site. The Director of Planning and Development Services (Director) approved the development project, which was subject to Architectural Review. The Director’s January 7, 2019 approval followed the positive recommendation of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) at the conclusion of two ARB public hearings. The intent of the subdivision request is to implement the approved project allowing for the private ownership of each unit. 4 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Background Project Information Owner: Y & J Michele Way LLC Architect: Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc. (Peter Carlino) Representative: Randy Popp Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 4115 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 136.54’ to 178.04’ by 99.99’; 15,696 square feet Housing Inventory Site: Yes, realistic yield of seven units Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, three (3) street trees; one Sycamore and one Maidenhair along El Camino Real and one Chinese Elm along El Camino Way Historic Resource(s): No Existing Improvement(s): 5,231 square feet; one-story; 1965 Existing Land Use(s): Retail Use (eating and drinking establishments) abandoned Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: CN (Goodwill); PC-5116 (Palo Alto Commons) West: RM-30 (Emek Beracha religious institution) East: RM-15 (Barclay Apartments); RM-30 (Camino Court Apartments) South: PC-4511 (multi-family); PC-3023 (multi-family) Special Setbacks: Not Applicable Aerial View of Property: 4 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Source: Google, CNES/Airbus, Maxar Technologies, Planet.com, US Geological Survey, USDA Farm Service Agency, 2019 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial (CN) 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 4 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: Preliminary Architectural Review on June 15, 2017; staff report – https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58265 Major Architectural Review on June 7, 2018; staff report -- https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=67936 Major Architectural Review on December 6, 2018; staff report -- http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=68004; recommended for approval Project Description The applicant requests approval of a Tentative Map for condominium purposes. The map creates two condominium units within 7,848 square feet of floor area, for commercial and office uses. The map creates seven residential condominium units. The mixed-use building includes a basement garage providing the required parking spaces for the uses. The non- residential units and residential units will be individually owned. The land and improvements will be held in common ownership. The project is consistent with the previously approved Architectural Review application. Attachment C provides a summary of the project’s compliance with the zoning standards. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview: • Subdivision (Tentative Map): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Government Code Section 66474. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 21.12.090 requires the Commission to review whether the proposed subdivision complies and is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (in particular, Government Code 66474), Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and State law. The Commission’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final approval. The findings to approve a Subdivision are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject site is part of the “Triangle” area identified in the South El Camino Real Guidelines (South ECR Guidelines) as further described below. This triangular development area is bordered by El Camino Real and El Camino Way. The area is unique in that it features parcels providing access from both streets, and one- and two-story buildings with more than one 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. 4 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 street-facing facade. The development pattern of the area provides a village-like setting. The Comprehensive Plan seeks further cultivation of this setting with future development. The subject lot is centrally located within the Triangle. The north property line fronts the intersection at El Camino Way and West Meadow Drive. The lot abuts a vacant one-story retail space (4117 El Camino Real) and the two-story Honeybaked Ham building (4113 El Camino Real). There is no existing defined pattern of development in the Triangle area. The Triangle area has a disjointed streetscape. Some buildings are built close to build-to-lines along either street, while others are deeply set back in the middle of the lot or positioned near either side lot line. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Neighborhood Commercial (CN). Neighborhood Commercial is intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas. The primary uses are retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking, and office uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood. The regulations are intended to assure maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas. The subject lot is identified in the Housing Element as a housing inventory site with a realistic capacity of seven (7) housing units. The project is consistent with several Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, as further described in Attachment B. Consistency with Palo Alto Municipal Code Consistency with Application Findings3 The necessary Tentative Map approval findings are contained in State law and incorporated into Title 21 of the City’s Municipal Code. Under the Subdivision Map Act, the PTC and Council must make a series of “reverse” findings to justify approval. If the findings cannot be made, the subdivision must be approved. Under Government Code Section 66474, the PTC shall recommend denying a Tentative Map if it makes any of the following findings: a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 4 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Staff performed a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable Title 21 findings. The analysis can be found in Attachment B. Some relevant factors are discussed below. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The proposed map is consistent with the previous approvals and implements the Architectural Review approval conditions. One of those conditions pertains to providing pedestrian access between El Camino Way and El Camino Real via a breezeway through the project site. The required public access easement documentation is included as Attachment D. The below-grade garage will be held in common ownership for use by all condominium owners and parking areas will be allocated as described in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Of the 47 approved, on-site parking spaces, 11 spaces (four garage spaces and seven mechanical parking stacker spaces) are allocated to the residential units. Twelve parking stacker spaces are allocated for the office uses. Twenty-four standard spaces are allocated to the retail use. The parking garage would remain open between 8am and 9pm daily to enable retail customer access to these spaces. Affordable Housing The project is subject to PAMC 16.65 (Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements). New for-sale housing developments are required to include at least 15% of below market rate (BMR) units. Pursuant to this section, the project is required to provide 1.05 “for-sale” dwelling units to those making 80 to 100 percent of the Santa Clara County median income (low income unit). Because the requirement would result in a fractional unit, the developer will provide one affordable unit and make a cash payment to the City’s Residential Housing Fund for the remainder of the requirement. The term to maintain the affordability of the BMR unit is for 99 years pursuant to the draft BMR agreement that Council is scheduled to review and approve in December. 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 covered by the previous Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Architectural Review application (File No. 17PLN-00280) adopted on January 7, 2019 (Attachment E). Attachment E to this report provides the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) with identified mitigation to address nesting birds, accidental discovery of archaeological and paleontological artifacts, geotechnical considerations, and construction related noise and vibration reduction. 4 Packet Pg. 18 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires (1) publication of public hearing notices in a local paper and (2) mailing of notices 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 Daily Post on October 30, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on October 30, 2019, which is 13 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions The Commission may wish to modify the approval findings or conditions or continue its review of the map to a date (un)certain. Should the Commission wish to recommend project denial, the Commission would be required to prepare affirmative findings supporting such denial. Report Author & Contact Information PTC4 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director (408) 340-5642 (650) 329-2167 sahsing@m-group.us rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • COI - SANDY TO CONFIRM NO CONFLICTS (DOCX) • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX) • Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment D: Breezeway Access Easement (PDF) • Attachment E: Project Plans and CEQA (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 19 4.b Packet Pg. 20 Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT B ACTION NO. 2019-XX DRAFT RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 4115 EL CAMINO REAL: TENTATIVE MAP, 18PLN-00238 (Bill Wu, APPLICANT) At its meeting on ______, 2019, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) approved the Tentative Map for the development of a one-lot subdivision project making the following findings, determinations and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. A. On July 20, 2018, Naresh Krishnamoorti applied for a Tentative Map and on March 11, 2019, due to an ownership change, Bill Wu became the applicant of record. The project includes a Tentative Map for the development of a one parcel condominium subdivision project with seven residential units and four commercial spaces totaling 7,848 square feet of commercial space (“the Project”). B. The Project site is comprised of one existing lot (APN No. 132-46-100) of approximately 0.36-acres zoned CN. The site contains one existing commercial structure. Commercial land uses are located adjacent to the lot to the north; place of worship to the west; multi-family to the east and south. C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the Project and recommended approval on November 13, 2019, subject to conditions of approval. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS- MND). An initial study was prepared for the project and it has been determined that there is potential for significant impacts that would require mitigation measures to reduce them to a less than significant level. These include mitigations for protection for nesting birds, cultural resources in the event of discovery, geotechnical for expansive soils, and construction noise. The IS-MND was made available for public review beginning November 30, 2018 and ended on January 2, 2019 and approved by the Director of Planning & Development Services on January 7, 2019. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration are contained as Attachment G in the December 6, 2018, ARB staff report (ID #9800). SECTION 3. Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a tentative map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474). The City Council cannot make these findings for the following reasons: 4.c Packet Pg. 21 Page 2 of 7 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: The site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as described below. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: The Project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: • Goal L-1: A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities and open spaces. • Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. • Policy L-1.4: Commit to creating an inventory of below market rate housing for purchase and rental. • Goal L-2. An enhanced sense of “community” with development designed to foster public life, meet citywide needs and embrace the principles of sustainability. • Policy L-2.2: Enhance connections between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents. • Policy L-2.6: Create opportunities for new mixed use development consisting of housing and retail. • Goal B-6: Attractive, vibrant retail centers, each with a mix of uses and a distinctive character. • Policy B-6.5: Strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along the El Camino Real corridor by, for example, encouraging the development of well-designed retail, professional services and housing. The project includes a mixed-use building with frontage along El Camino Real with at-grade parking in the rear along El Camino Way and below-grade parking. The project complements the surrounding development and is consistent with the land-use designations for the property. The project was reviewed by the ARB previously for design review. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: The site is a through-lot with street frontages in the front and the rear. The project is consistent with the City’s Performance Standards set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.23, 4.c Packet Pg. 22 Page 3 of 7 ensuring compatibility between commercial and residential uses. Proposed lighting is directed downward to prevent spillover to adjacent properties. Trash enclosures are located at grade level of the project. The site circulation facilitates access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short- term and long-term bike parking. The project will include a pedestrian access breezeway to connect El Camino Way and El Camino Real. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The allowed residential density for the site is up to 20 dwelling units per acre, which based on the project site acreage amounts to seven dwelling units that would be allowed. The project is consistent with the maximum Floor Area Ratio and does qualify for an affordable housing density bonus. The density bonus floor area is applied to the below-market-rate units in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: As conditioned in the Final IS-MND approved by the Director of Planning & Development Services on January 7, 2019, the Project will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, in that property is not adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and would incorporate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: An environmental analysis identifies potentially significant impacts related to the associated development project’s improvements that would require mitigation measures to reduce them to a less than significant level. These include mitigations as reported in the Final IS- MND approved by the Director of Planning & Development Services on January 7, 2019. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with any easements for access through or use of the property. An access easement will be in effect for pedestrian access between El Camino Way and El Camino Real. 4.c Packet Pg. 23 Page 4 of 7 SECTION 4. Tentative Map Approval Granted. Vesting Tentative Map Approval is filed and processed in accordance to PAMC Chapter 21.12 and granted by the City Council under PAMC Chapters 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of this Record. SECTION 5. Final Map. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Map prepared by Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc. titled “Tentative Map For Condominium Purposes,” consisting of 16 pages, stamped as received January 28, 2019, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of the Tentative Map is on file in the Department of Planning Development Services, Current Planning Division. Prior to the expiration of the Tentative Map approval, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in PAMC Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Title 21 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]). SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. Planning Division 1. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), shall be incorporated by reference as conditions of approval. The applicant shall comply with all specified mitigation measures in the timelines outlined in the project’s MMRP. Prior to requesting issuance of any related demolition and/or construction permits, the applicant shall meet with the Project Planner to review and ensure compliance with the MMRP, subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development Services. 2. Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Requirement: This project’s total BMR requirement is 1.05 units. When the BMR requirement results in a fractional unit, an in-lieu payment to the Residential Housing Fund may be made for the fractional unit instead of providing an actual BMR unit, except that larger projects of 30 or more units must provide a whole BMR unit for any fractional unit of one-half (0.50) or larger. To satisfy this requirement, the applicant shall provide one (1) BMR for-sale housing unit affordable to households making 80 to 100 percent of the Santa Clara County median income within the project in accordance with the requirements set forth in Program H3.1.2 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 16.65 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the BMR Program rules and regulations. The applicant shall also provide in lieu payment as specified in Section 16.65.060. The fractional in-lieu fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits for the project; provided, however, that prior to issuance 4.c Packet Pg. 24 Page 5 of 7 of the first building permit for the project, the applicant may elect to provide one additional inclusionary unit instead of paying the fractional in lieu payment. 3. All BMR units constructed under this condition shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR Program rules and regulations. A BMR Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the 1.05 BMR units shall be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. The applicant is hereby notified, as required by Government Code § 66020, that the approved plans, these conditions of approval, and the adopted City fee schedule set forth in Program H3.1.2 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan constitute written notice of the description of the dedications, reservations, amount of fees and other exactions related to the project. As of the date of project approval, the 90-day period has begun in which the applicant may protest any dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions imposed by the City. Failure to file a protest in compliance with all of the requirements of Government Code § 66020 will result in a legal bar to challenging the dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions. 4. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE. Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $248,628.62 plus the affordable housing in-lieu fee. 5. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. Public Works Engineering Department 6. Subdivider shall prepare and submit documents per PAMC 21.16.020 along with the Final Map. 4.c Packet Pg. 25 Page 6 of 7 7. Off-site improvements such as curb and gutter, sidewalk replacement, street tree replacement and/or new street trees, street lights, utility upgrades or street resurfacing, striping are typically required with subdivisions. Since the proposed project is a subdivision, applicant shall be aware that off-site improvements such as those listed above will be required. At a minimum, applicant shall provide an Off-site improvement Plan set that show new curb, gutter and sidewalk along the project frontages to be removed and replaced, full street width resurfacing (grind and overlay) will be required, new street trees, striping, all off-site utility upgrades. Applicant shall meet with City’s Urban Forestry division to evaluate if a new street tree can be planted along the project frontages. 8. Provide closure calculations and stamped and signed cost estimate for the off-site improvements described above. 9. Subdivision Improvement Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite per PAMC Section 21.16.220. 10. The Final Map shall include CITY ENGINEER STATEMENT, CITY SURVEYOR STATEMENT, BENEFICIARY STATEMENT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT STATEMENT and CITY CLERK. Please note, it has come to PWE attention that the City Engineer’s Statement on maps moving forward needs to be updated to have the following phrase removed “AND I AM SATISFIED THAT SAID MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT”. Please ensure City Engineer’s statement does not include this wording. 11. The City of Palo Alto does not currently have a City Surveyor on staff and has retained the services of Siegfried Engineering to review and provide approval on behalf of the City. Siegfried will be reviewing, signing and stamping the Final Map associated with the project. In effort to employ the services of Siegfried Engineering, and as part of the City’s cost recovery measures, the applicant is required to provide payment to cover the cost of Siegfried Engineering’s review. City’s Public Works Department intends to forward the Final Map to Siegfried for an initial preliminary review of the documents. Siegfried will then provide a review cost amount based on the complexity of the project and the information shown on the document. Public Works will share this information with the applicant once received and ask that applicant return a copy acknowledging the amount. Applicant may then provide a check for this amount as payment for the review cost. The City must receive payment prior to beginning the final review process. 12. Provide electronic copies of the documents provided. 4.c Packet Pg. 26 Page 7 of 7 PRIOR TO FINAL MAP RECORDATION 13. Submit wet signed and stamped mylar copy of the Final Map to the Public Works for signature. Map shall be signed by Owner, Notary and Surveyor prior to formal submittal. 14. Signed Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Security Bonds as described per PAMC 21.16.230. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT 15. Final Map shall be recorded with County Recorder. SECTION 7. Term of Approval. Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]). Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Tentative Map approval, the Tentative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. An extension of time may be granted by the city council after recommendation of the planning commission, upon the written application of the subdivider, prior to the expiration of the Tentative Map approval, or any previous extension granted. Such extension(s) shall be subject to the maximum limitations set forth in the Subdivision Map Act. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Deputy City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc. titled “Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes” consisting of 16 pages, stamped, January 28, 2019. 4.c Packet Pg. 27 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 4115 El Camino Real, File No. 18PLN-00238 Map for Condominium Purposes Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CN) DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area (1) none 15,696 sf (0.36 acres) Same Minimum/Maximum Site Width (1) (2n none 99.99’ Same Minimum/Maximum Site Depth none 136.54” to 178.04’ Same (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. 4.d Packet Pg. 28 C:\Users\Sheldon\Box\Company Shared Folder\City Folder\Palo Alto\Projects\4115 EL CAMINO REAL\Subdivision\PTC\4115 EL CAMINO BREEZEWAY ACCESS EASEMENT FORM ayedit-DMVREVIEW3.docx 1. RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF: The City of Palo Alto WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: The City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS APN 023-041-09 THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ("Breezeway Easement Agreement”) is made as an easement in gross by and between Y & J Michele Way, LLC, a California limited liability company, as "Grantor" and the City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation as “Grantee”, as of , 2019 with respect to the real property described herein as: All of that certain real property situated in the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, State of California, described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Servient Estate”) NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and declarations set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, Grantor now grants to Grantee the easement and right herein stated for access over and area of the Servient Estate for use of a breezeway pedestrian walkway for access by the public to and from El Camino Real and El Camino Way, which shall exist and endure for the benefit of Grantee and the public as hereinafter provided, over and across the Breezeway Easement Area within the Servient Estate for the term stated in this Breezeway Easement Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions stated in this Breezeway Easement Agreement being kept and fulfilled. 1. Creation of Easements. There is hereby established and granted in favor of Grantee and the public over and across, those portions of the Servient Estate shown on Exhibit “B” attached hereto as the Breezeway Easement Area as a non-exclusive easement in gross for the purpose of use as a breezeway pedestrian walkway to be constructed by Grantor (“Breezeway Access Easement Area”) for Grantee and the general public for the term herein stated. Such rights of access shall be limited only to the Breezeway Access Easement Area as herein provided, and no other areas of the Servient Property. 2. Duration of Easement. The easements herein granted shall be perpetual until such time as Grantee terminates or abandons such easements by written instrument. 3. Use of Easement Area. The Breezeway Access Easement Area and all improvements installed and located therein may be used by the Grantee for public pedestrian access purposes for use by City, for public use as stated in Paragraph 4 of this Breezeway Easement Agreement. 4. Limitations on Use of Easement. The Grantor or its successors and assigns, including any common interest development association that operates the common areas of the Servient Property may establish reasonable limitations on the timing and extent of use of the easements and rights granted or created herein as the Breezeway Access Easement Area subject to reasonable approval of the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, unless the City agrees in writing otherwise, the Breezeway Access Easement Area shall be open to and for public use for access to and from El Camino Real to El Camino Way only from the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., daily. Grantor and its successors in interest in and to the Servient Property may install lockable gates at the entrances to the Breezeway Access Easement Area to prevent access at hours other than the specified public use hours in the preceding sentence. Grantor and its successors in interest shall install and maintain signage at the entranceways to the Breezeway Access Easement Area, including on any gates, providing reasonable notice to the public that the area is open for public use and access 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily. 4.e Packet Pg. 29 C:\Users\Sheldon\Box\Company Shared Folder\City Folder\Palo Alto\Projects\4115 EL CAMINO REAL\Subdivision\PTC\4115 EL CAMINO BREEZEWAY ACCESS EASEMENT FORM ayedit-DMVREVIEW3.docx 2. 5. Construction of Breezeway Access Easement. Grantor shall construct the improvements that constitute the Breezeway Access Easement in accordance with the project plans as approved by the City at Grantor’s sole cost and expense, with the understanding that all such improvements shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved design and permit thereof, in a reasonable and prudent manner. All construction and installation of improvements hereunder shall be at no cost or expense to Grantee and shall be undertaken consistent in all material respects with the approved plans and City inspection requirements. 6. Maintenance of Breezeway Access Easement Area. The Grantor shall be responsible for general maintenance and repair of the improvements that constitute the Breezeway Access Easement during the term of this Breezeway Access Easement Agreement in a reasonable and prudent manner consistent with the City standards and at its sole cost and expense. If Grantor or its successors, assigns, contractors or invitees cause any damage to the Breezeway Access Easement Area, Grantor shall repair the Breezeway Access Easement Area within a reasonable time at its sole cost. Upon formation of a common interest development association that operates the common areas of the Servient Property the obligations of Grantor hereunder shall be deemed to have been assigned by Grantor to such a common interest development association which shall be obligated to assume and undertake such obligations for general maintenance and repair of the improvements that constitute the Breezeway Access Easement during the term of this Breezeway Access Easement Agreement. Grantee shall not bear any responsibility for the maintenance or repair of the Breezeway Access Easement improvements. 7. Easement in Gross. The easements and rights granted or created herein as the Easement Areas shall be an easement in gross for the use and benefit of Grantee and for the general public as a public access easement, and cannot be transferred, assigned, or encumbered. 8. Rights-Servient Estate Owner. The owner of the Servient Estate hereunder shall have the right to use the Servient Estate in any manner which is not inconsistent with this grant of easement hereby granted to the Grantee, which does not materially interfere with the easement rights hereunder granted to the Grantee. However, if Grantor or its successors, assigns, contractors or invitees cause any damage to the Breezeway Access Easement Area, Grantor shall repair the Breezeway Access Easement Area within a reasonable time at its sole cost. 9. Indemnity. Grantor shall indemnify and hold Grantee free and harmless from and against all cost, damage and/or liability which arises from or relates to the acts or omissions of Grantor, or of Grantor's agents, employees, contractors, or invitees, in improving, maintaining, or using this Breezeway Access Easement Area, except to the extent that such cost, damage and/or liability arises from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Grantee or Grantee's agents, employees, contractors, or invitees. 10. Notices. Any notice request, demand or other communications permitted or required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing duly addressed to the parties as follows: GRANTOR: Y & J Michele Way, LLC, a California limited liability company 433 Airport Blvd. Ste 550 Burlingame CA 94010 Attn: Bill Wu GRANTEE: The City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: City Manager Any such notice sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested shall be deemed to have been duly given and received 5:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) two (2) business days after it is so addressed and mailed with postage prepaid. Any such notice sent by a recognized overnight courier service shall be deemed to have been duly given and received 5:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) one (12) business day after is so 4.e Packet Pg. 30 C:\Users\Sheldon\Box\Company Shared Folder\City Folder\Palo Alto\Projects\4115 EL CAMINO REAL\Subdivision\PTC\4115 EL CAMINO BREEZEWAY ACCESS EASEMENT FORM ayedit-DMVREVIEW3.docx 3. addressed and sent with the cost of such overnight delivery service prepaid. Notice sent by any other manner shall be effective only upon actual receipt thereof. Any party may change its address for purposes of this Agreement by giving notice to the other party as provided herein. 11. Attorneys’ Fees. In the event any party hereto institutes legal action to enforce or interpret its rights under this Breezeway Access Easement Agreement, then the prevailing party or parties shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to other costs of suit as awarded by the court. 12. Governing Law and Venue. This this Breezeway Access Easement Agreement shall be governed under the laws of California. In the event that an action is brought pursuant to this Breezeway Access Easement Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed and made by the Grantor effective as of the date first above set forth. Grantor: Y & J Michele Way, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Its: Grantee: City of Palo Alto, a California municipal corporation By: Its: 4.e Packet Pg. 31 C:\Users\Sheldon\Box\Company Shared Folder\City Folder\Palo Alto\Projects\4115 EL CAMINO REAL\Subdivision\PTC\4115 EL CAMINO BREEZEWAY ACCESS EASEMENT FORM ayedit-DMVREVIEW3.docx 4. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF ) On 201 before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Witness my hand and official seal. [Seal] (Signature) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF ) On 201 before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Witness my hand and official seal. (Signature) [Seal] CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT - CIVIL CODE SECTION 1189 A notary public or other officer completing the certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the7 document to which the certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT - CIVIL CODE SECTION 1189 A notary public or other officer completing the certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which the certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 4.e Packet Pg. 32 C:\Users\Sheldon\Box\Company Shared Folder\City Folder\Palo Alto\Projects\4115 EL CAMINO REAL\Subdivision\PTC\4115 EL CAMINO BREEZEWAY ACCESS EASEMENT FORM ayedit-DMVREVIEW3.docx 5. Exhibit “A” - Servient Estate All of that real property situated in the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, State of California described as: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERN LINE OF THE OLD SAN FRANCISCO-SAN JOSE ROAD WHERE IT IS INTERSECTED BY THE SOUTHEASTERN LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 0.275 ACRE TRACT OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM TYNAN LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, TO THOMAS HUNE, ET UX., BY DEED DATED OCTOBER 7, 1935, IN BOOK 749 O.R. PAGE 50, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERN LINE OF THE OLD SAN FRANCISCO-SAN JOSE ROAD, NORTH 56° 55' WEST 100 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES SOUTH 33° 05' WEST 155 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERN LINE OF THE NEW SAN FRANCISCO-SAN JOSE ROAD (STATE HIGHWAY), AS SAID NORTHEASTERN LINE WAS ESTABLISHED BY DEED FROM THERESA L. RHODES TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY DEED DATED JULY 31, 1929, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 13, 1929, IN BOOK 484 O.R., PAGE 110, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE RUNNING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERN LINE OF THE NEW SAN FRANCISCO-SAN JOSE ROAD (STATE HIGHWAY) ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 3050 FEET, A DISTANCE OF 116 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWESTERN CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN 2-1/2 ACRE TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM THERESA L. RHODES TO ANDREW J. MCCOY, ET UX., DATED MARCH 18, 1925, RECORDED MARCH 21, 1925, IN BOOK 149 O.R. PAGE 163; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHWESTERN LINE OF SAID 2-1/2 ACRE TRACT OF LAND ABOVE REFERRED TO; NORTH 33° 05' EAST 190 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF FRONTING ON THE HIGHWAY LEADING FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE KNOWN AS EL CAMINO REAL TAKEN OR CONVEYED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WIDENING SAID ROADWAY. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF THE LAND GRANTED TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN THAT FINAL JUDGMENT OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED OCTOBER 3, 1967 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 3296676, IN BOOK 7880, PAGE 102 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 4.e Packet Pg. 33 C:\Users\Sheldon\Box\Company Shared Folder\City Folder\Palo Alto\Projects\4115 EL CAMINO REAL\Subdivision\PTC\4115 EL CAMINO BREEZEWAY ACCESS EASEMENT FORM ayedit-DMVREVIEW3.docx 6. Exhibit “B” - Breezeway Access Easement Area [ATTACH DRAWING SHOWING EASEMENT AREA] 4.e Packet Pg. 34 Attachment E Project Plans & CEQA Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or 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: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “4115 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4728&TargetID=319 4.f Packet Pg. 35 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 10631) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: San Antonio Road & East Charleston Road Intersection Improvements Project Title: Discuss the Concept Plan Alternatives for Improvements to the San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road Intersection and Recommend that City Council Direct Staff to Complete Final Design Plans, Environmental Analysis, Specifications and Estimates for Construction for the Preferred Alternative Concept Plan From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action: 1. Recommend City Council to review the preferred alternative concept plan for San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road intersection and direct staff to complete final design plans, environmental analysis, specifications and estimates for construction. Report Summary City staff initiated a traffic safety project at the intersection of San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road in response to resident and constituent concerns about traffic safety and operations at this intersection. The objectives of the project are to improve pedestrian safety, address intersection operations, and maintain or improve motor vehicle level of service. As part of developing the concept plans, four (4) community meetings have been held since 2018. The first meeting focused on understanding project goals, identifying issues and opportunities, and presenting details of existing conditions. Follow up community meetings included a discussion of various improvement alternatives for the intersection and corresponding effects on safety and operations. As a result of this community-driven process, City staff has identified a preferred alternative concept plan which includes improving pedestrian visibility and reducing crossing distances for two crosswalks by modifying the southwest corner for pedestrians and vehicular access to the frontage road, and by improving vehicular operations by adding a 5 Packet Pg. 36 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 second southbound left-turn lane on San Antonio Road and implementing an overlap phase for the southbound right-turn lanes. Background Both San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road are classified as arterial streets, and their junction is a major signalized intersection within the City of Palo Alto. For the purposes of this report, San Antonio Road runs north-south, and East Charleston runs east-west. A frontage road exists parallel to San Antonio Road on the west side that provides access to Fabian Way, to the 76 gas station, and to residents and businesses on the northwest quadrant of this intersection. This intersection provides a direct connection to the US 101 Freeway, the Jewish Community Center, Space Systems Loral, and the City of Mountain View; and has been identified as an intersection of concern due to complaints related to traffic congestion and pedestrian safety. Comprehensive Plan Goal T-2, concerning Traffic Delay and Congestion, states “Decrease delay, congestion and VMT with a priority on our worst intersections and our peak commute times, including school traffic”. About 4,000 motor vehicles and 20 bicycles travel through this intersection during the one-hour morning peak on a typical weekday. This intersection currently operates at a motor vehicle Level of Service C during the morning peak-hour and Level of Service D during the evening peak-hour but will sometimes exceed its practical capacity when surges of traffic from multiple directions occur simultaneously. Level of Service D can be described as approaching unstable flow of traffic and occasionally waiting through more than one signal cycle before proceeding. San Antonio Road and Charleston Road are designated as a future enhanced bikeway in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012) in the vicinity of this intersection. In November 2017, City Staff began collecting and analyzing comprehensive traffic volume, speed and collision data. On April 26, 2018, Staff hosted the first community meeting where community members and stakeholders provided input on project goals and helped identify issues and opportunities. Two follow-up community meetings were held on September 5, 2018 and August 22, 2019, to discuss and present revised alternative concept ideas for the intersection. In addition, Staff also met with surrounding businesses in a daytime community meeting on February 12, 2019 to discuss any issues and concerns more directly related to the local business operations. Staff received many constructive comments from the community. Most were related to specific pedestrian improvements, overall traffic safety, parking concerns, and maintaining or improving the current vehicle operations. With input from stakeholders and evaluation by the consulting team, two alternative concept plans were developed. These two alternatives are discussed in more detail below. Discussion 5 Packet Pg. 37 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 The San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road Intersection Improvement project is intended to address concerns brought to staff by local residents that live near or commute through this intersection. The focus of this current project is targeted at three main goals: • Improve access and mobility of all modes of travel; • Reduce vehicular collisions and improve intersection safety for pedestrians; and • Rationalize traffic operations. Local residents, employees, and community center visitors have cited a history of collisions, pedestrian safety and congestion during the peak hours as recurring issues at this intersection. Of particular concern was pedestrian safety crossing the west leg of East Charleston Road with two conflicting southbound right-turn lanes on San Antonio Road. During field observations, it was noted that vehicles in the second right-turn lane do not always yield to pedestrians as required. According to data assembled by the California Highway Patrol, using the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, this intersection had approximately 25 reported collisions over a five-year period from January 2012 to December 2016. For a typical collision history analysis, the last five years of complete data is commonly reviewed. In reviewing the reported-collision history and primary collision factors, the City’s Transportation staff determined that most collisions were likely caused by unsafe speed or improper turning; and the prevailing crash type was rear–end or sideswipe, which can likely be attributed to vehicles speeding or heavy traffic congestion. The highest number of rear-end collisions occurred on westbound Charleston Road with the highest number of sideswipe collisions on southbound San Antonio Road and eastbound Charleston Road. As part of the Office of Transportation’s Traffic Safety Program, staff worked with the neighborhood to identify potential options and ideas and held a community meeting on April 26, 2018 at the Jewish Community Center. About 40 people were present at this meeting where staff presented three (3) preliminary ideas to address identified concerns that could be implemented within a short time and a longer-term idea that would be possible to implement with the US 101 Freeway Interchange project. Preliminary Concept Idea A: Idea A includes removal of one southbound right-turn travel lane on San Antonio Road and addition of an Overlap phase in the traffic signal timing. Addition of a southbound bike lane on San Antonio Road and pedestrian improvements at southwest corner are also proposed. Two through southbound lanes and one left turn lane would be maintained. Preliminary Concept Idea B: Idea B includes addition of a second southbound left-turn lane on San Antonio Road. Two through southbound lanes, one shared through-right turn lane and a right only turn lane would be maintained. 5 Packet Pg. 38 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Preliminary Concept Idea C: Idea C combines features of both ideas A and B. This idea includes removal of one southbound right-turn travel lane and addition of a southbound bike lane on San Antonio Road. Pedestrian improvements at southwest corner and addition of an Overlap phase in the traffic signal timing are also proposed. It also includes addition of a second southbound left-turn lane on San Antonio Road. Two through southbound lanes would be maintained. At the first meeting, residents were generally in favor of idea C but expressed concerns about traffic back up and congestion if one southbound right-turn travel lane were to be removed. Based on community input from the first outreach meeting as well as additional operational evaluations, idea “D” was developed to incorporate more protected pedestrian movement. Preliminary Idea D: Idea D includes addition of a second southbound left-turn lane on San Antonio Road and pedestrian improvements at southwest corner. Two through southbound lanes would be maintained and the shared through-right turn lane would be converted to right only turn lane. Newly developed idea D and previously discussed idea C were presented at the second community meeting held on September 5, 2018 at the Jewish Community Center. 45 people attended this meeting and provided constructive feedback on both ideas. Most people were generally in favor of idea D but were concerned about pedestrian safety when crossing the west leg of East Charleston Road with two conflicting southbound right-turn lanes on San Antonio Road (as it currently exists). Staff committed to further evaluate southbound right-turn signal operations. Some of the business owners requested another focused meeting with staff so they could better understand how the modifications at the southwest corner would impact them in terms of access and parking. As presented, corner modifications would eliminate three parking spaces along the frontage road on San Antonio and align the crosswalk for better visibility. Due to high parking demand, loss of three parking spaces is significant for businesses in this area. Staff further revised idea D to add additional parking spaces further south such that no net loss of parking spaces along the frontage road would occur. Modifications to the southwest corner was also revised to incorporate a full third receiving lane (ten to 11 feet wide) for vehicles entering the frontage road and also to accommodate larger vehicles access to the frontage road and gas station. Analysis1 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The 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 action that is different than the recommended action. 5 Packet Pg. 39 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 After preliminary feasibility analysis, the concept ideas were reduced to two options: Concept Plans C and D, which could reasonably be implemented within the existing constraints. Both ideas and their alternate comparisons are discussed below: Preliminary Idea C: This concept plan is included as Attachment A in this report. This Plan includes removal of one southbound right-turn travel lane and addition of a southbound bike lane on San Antonio Road and adds a southbound buffered bicycle lane. It also includes modifications to the southwest corner of the intersection and improves access to the San Antonio Road frontage road. These modifications would allow the crosswalk on the west leg of East Charleston to be aligned with the roadway at 90 degrees thus minimizing the exposure of vehicles to potential conflicts with pedestrians and reduce the severity of a conflict. Currently this crosswalk is skewed and results in reduced sight angles between pedestrians crossing and drivers turning right onto Charleston Road. Skewed crossings also result in additional distance pedestrians must travel to traverse the intersection. This additional distance requires the need for additional green time for the total walk interval of the pedestrian phase in signal timing. Addition of an Overlap phase in the traffic signal timing is also proposed for the southbound right turn. An "overlap" is a special output of the traffic signal controller that allows for a right turn to receive a green arrow at the same time as a left –turn movement on the adjacent leg. This also allows for an "overlap" from one phase movement to another. At this intersection, the dedicated right turn lane would be signalized with a right turn arrow and would then operate when the adjacent eastbound left is green. This signal overlap would allow the southbound right-turn traffic to continue moving during some portions when the southbound through traffic has a red signal. The use of an overlap would potentially help the overall traffic capacity through this intersection. This concept also includes addition of a second southbound left-turn lane on San Antonio Road to maximize queue storage and traffic operations in an effort to reduce congestion. This would improve traffic flow through the intersection by increasing the capacity of the roadway. This congestion mitigation technique would not require any right-of-way acquisitions and could be implemented by utilizing the current area that has median markings adjacent to the northbound through travel lane. Roadway configuration for southbound traffic would then be two left turn lanes, two through lanes, one bike lane and one right turn only lane. Pros: Modifications to the southwest corner of the intersection shortens pedestrian crossing and improves sightlines. Bicycle lane adds bike safety for southbound direction. Addition of a second southbound left turn vehicular travel lane would increase roadway capacity. Cons: Vehicular Level of Service (LOS) would worsen during the morning peak period and remain about the same during the evening peak period. The AM 5 Packet Pg. 40 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 peak period is affected by the right turn lane reduction along with existing heavy southbound right turning vehicle demands. Preliminary Idea D: This concept plan is included as Attachment B in this report. Idea D includes keeping the second southbound shared right -turn lane on San Antonio Road but converts it to right-turn only (onto Charleston) modifies the southwest corner of the intersection, and adds an overlap phase as discussed above in Idea C. Two through southbound lanes would be maintained, however the right-most through lane would become a shared through-right lane for vehicles traveling to the frontage road south of the intersection. This would allow more vehicles to turn right thus improving the traffic flow during the morning peak period. Roadway configuration for southbound traffic would then be two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and two right turn only lanes. Pros: Modifications to the southwest corner of the intersection shortens pedestrian crossing and improves sightlines. Addition of a second southbound left turn vehicular travel lane would increase roadway capacity. Southbound right turn capacity is maintained with overlap phase. Cons: Bicycle conditions remain same as existing. Using the City’s adopted standards of significance for increased delays at signalized intersections and existing traffic volumes, staff evaluated both the preliminary ideas described above and determined that a reduction from two to one right turn travel lane on southbound San Antonio Road would trigger a potentially significant environmental impact at the intersection. Based on this analysis, staff recommends implementing idea D for improvements to the intersection of San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road. Resource Impact This project is funded through the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Traffic Impact Fee. A total of $900,000 was budgeted in the FY20 Adopted Capital Budget for this project. Environmental Review Given the nature of the proposed improvements for the concept plan, the project is anticipated to qualify for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption. However, this will be reviewed further and if necessary, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) will be prepared prior to final approval. The Class 1 exemption covers minor alterations to existing facilities so long as they involve no or negligible expansion of use. Although the project would include addition of a second southbound left-turn lane on San Antonio Road, the overall roadway width and the existing curb-to-curb dimension remains unchanged. This signalized intersection is anticipated to operate at an improved motor vehicle level of service than it does under existing conditions. 5 Packet Pg. 41 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 Public Notification, Outreach & Comments Notice cards for this public hearing were sent to residents and businesses within 500 feet radius of this intersection. Attendees who provided their email addresses during community meetings were also notified through an email. The meeting details were posted on social media and the city’s website and were open to all. More extensive outreach to the local businesses and residents during the four community meetings/workshops was conducted as described above in Background section of this report. Next Steps City Council consideration of this project is tentatively scheduled for December 16, 2019. Upon approval from City Council, staff will begin working with on-call consultants on the environmental analysis, plans, specifications, and estimates for construction. Design and environmental work is scheduled to be completed by summer 2020. Construction will be scheduled soon thereafter. Report Author & Contact Information PTC2 Liaison & Contact Information Ruchika Aggarwal, Project Engineer Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director (650) 617-3136 (650) 329-2167 Ruchika.Aggarwal@cityofpaloalto.org Rachael.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Preliminary Concept Plan C (PDF) • Attachment B: Preliminary Concept Plan D (PDF) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 5 Packet Pg. 42 11' 11' 12' 11' 11' 12' 13' 5' + 2' BIKE LANE BUFFERS 12' 12' CH A R L E S T O N R O A D SAN ANTONIO ROAD FA B I A N WA Y Alternative C - Addition of Left-Turn Lane and Removal of One Right-Turn Lane San Antonio Road & Charleston Road, Palo Alto, CA CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED EA S T CH A R L E S T O N RO A D LEGEND PROPOSED SIGNAL EXISTING SIGNAL PHASE DIAGRAM 5.a Packet Pg. 43 11' 11' 12' 11' 11' 11' 12' 12' NO REDUCTION IN TOTAL PARKING SPACES ON FRONTAGE ROAD MODIFICATION TO ADD 2 PARKING SPACES REMOVAL OF 2 EXISTING PARKING SPACES RELOCATE EXISTING SIGN CH A R L E S T O N R O A D SAN ANTONIO ROAD FA B I A N WA Y Short-term Idea D - Addition of Second Left-Turn Lane, Adjustment to Right Turns San Antonio Road & Charleston Road, Palo Alto, CA CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED EA S T CH A R L E S T O N RO A D LEGEND PROPOSED SIGNAL EXISTING SIGNAL PHASE DIAGRAM 5.b Packet Pg. 44 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 10716) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/13/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Consideration of New PDA and PCA Designation Title: Consider and Recommend to Council a Proposal to Designate a New Priority Development Area in Downtown Palo Alto and Designating Priority Conservation Areas in the Foothills and Baylands From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) discuss and make a recommendation to Council on the designation of a new Priority Development Area (PDA) in Downtown Palo Alto and new Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) for Foothills and the Baylands. Background The purpose of this staff report is to provide information for a policy discussion. The topic is designation of a new Priority Development Area in the Downtown, and new Priority Conservation Areas on publicly-owned lands. The two PCA target areas are the Baylands and the Foothills. Staff will forward the PTC’s input to the City Council for action. Senate Bill 375 In 2008, the State passed Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), directing the California Air Resources Board to set regional targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. SB 375 established and required the involvement of cities and counties in the development of regional plans to achieve the GHG reduction targets. SB 375 also identified the requirement to link land use planning to transportation planning. Finally, SB 375 connects the regional allocation of housing needs and regional transportation planning to meet the goals of reducing GHG emissions. Sustainable Communities Strategy and Plan Bay Area In response to the State requirements under SB 375, the local Council of Governments (COG) updates a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) every four years. The SCS must be aligned with transportation investments for reducing GHG emissions. The local COGs for the San 6 Packet Pg. 45 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Francisco Bay Area are the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG). The formal name for the SCS for the region is Plan Bay Area. Plan Bay Area does not replace the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; instead it is a long-range plan for the entire region. Plan Bay Area forecasts development patterns based on four key issues: economy, environment, housing, and transportation. Plan Bay Area 2050 will project how the region can accommodate growth over the next three decades. PBA will strategize how growth and future investments can be made throughout the life of the plan. Plan Bay Area is updated every four years, with a major update due in 2021. Plan Bay Area is a regional plan that establishes a long-range regional vision across multiple jurisdictions. In preparing for Plan Bay Area, MTC/ABAG prepares a regional growth framework. This growth framework integrates planning for land use, transportation and other infrastructure, resiliency, environment, and the economy. The three designations that would implement the priorities in Plan Bay Area’s Regional Growth Framework are Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), Priority Production Areas (PPAs), and Priority Development Areas (PDAs). The regional growth framework aims to focus housing and jobs in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) while preserving Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs). These designations are further described below. 1. Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) are: • Locations designated for the protection of natural habitats and the preservation of open space for long-term protection; and • Categorized as natural landscapes, agricultural lands, urban green, or regional recreation. 2. Priority Production Areas (PPAs) are: • A new addition to the Plan Bay Area process, piloted this cycle; • Intended to support middle-wage job growth via selected industrial areas close to affordable housing; • Intended to position these areas for future planning and investment; • Areas zoned for industrial use or have high concentration of industrial activities; and • More than ½ mile away from regional rail station and outside of a PDA. 3. Priority Development Areas (PDAs) are: • Located within an existing community; • Planned areas for future housing and job growth; • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by offering a various transportation options; • Promote greater opportunities for all regardless of race or income; • Within in a half-mile of frequent transit. Designation of PDA, PPA and PCA: Purpose and Participation 6 Packet Pg. 46 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 The purpose of PDAs, PPAs and PCAs is to help guide growth while achieving preservation of diverse jobs (such as production jobs) and maintaining conservation areas. The designation of PDAs, PPAs, and PCAs is voluntary. Each city represented may identify areas for future growth that are near transit, demonstrating local priorities are consistent with regional goals. By statute, the designations are intended to be incentive based, and local jurisdictions would retain all zoning control. For local jurisdictions that elect to designate PDAs, PPD, or PCAs, funding is available through competitive grants to conduct planning or implementation activities within the boundaries of the areas. The identified PDA, PCA and PPAs are intended to implement the goals from Plan Bay Area within the targeted priority areas. Within each PDA, the primary purpose is to support growth around transit facilities and provide opportunities to connect housing and jobs. A PPA’s purpose is to conserve industrial zoning. A PCA’s purpose is to conserve natural resources. Discussion Staff propose the City of Palo Alto designate one (1) new Priority Development Area and two (2) new Priority Conservation Areas. Proposed University Avenue/Downtown PDA The proposed University Avenue/Downtown PDA is approximately 206 acres, all within a half mile of the existing University Avenue Caltrain Station. Attachment A displays the boundaries of the proposed PDA. The proposed Downtown PDA’s boundaries include parts of downtown, South of Forest Area (SOFA), and the Stanford Shopping Center which are all located within half a mile of the University Avenue Caltrain Station. Designating this area as a Priority Development Area aligns with Council-adopted policies that seek to focus housing growth in the downtown and improve non-SOV connectivity to and through the Downtown area. For example, the Comprehensive Plan and zoning updates have identified El Camino Real, California Avenue, and Downtown Palo Alto as key areas for new residential and mixed-used development. By creating a new PDA designation, the City can take advantage of future funding opportunities to realize transportation, housing, or other improvements that have been discussed in policies documents including the Comprehensive Plan, the Housing Element, and elsewhere in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Adding University Avenue/Downtown as a PDA will align with recently adopted City Council policies and enable the City to improve the existing area’s transit via capital projects or connectivity and strategically plan for growth. A goal of a PDA is to designate the area for future housing growth which has been identified by City policies. In the 2015-2023 Housing Element, on page 133, Program 2.1.11 proposes a potential Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) overlay for University Avenue downtown district to promote higher density multifamily housing development. In 2006, the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.34 introduced the concept of, and process for, 6 Packet Pg. 47 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 implementing the PTOD Combining District for California Avenue. The code allowed applicants to submit proposals for development projects having greater residential density (40 dwelling units per acre). The sites enabled for such higher density housing were commercial, industrial, and multifamily parcels within walkable distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan described the idea of Transit-Oriented Residential (TOR) development, allowing a greater number of residential dwellings in the University Avenue/Downtown within walkable distance of the City’s multi-modal transit station. The TOR area would have design standards to ensure developments would be cohesive with their context and minimize potential impacts. The housing density maximum would be 50 dwelling units per acre. Population densities would range up to 2.25 per persons per unit. Combined, the city policies and program identified in the Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan support increased density and focus growth near transit. These policies illustrate the City’s desire to increase residential opportunities and transportation options in the Downtown. If the University Avenue/Downtown PDA is successful in the application process, the City could use the funding to prepare the Downtown coordinated area plan (CAP). The CAP can incorporate programs identified in both the Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan. City Council has identified the goal of recommending staff to study a Downtown Coordinated Area Plan. Proposed Priority Conservation Areas Staff propose 2 Priority Conservation Areas: (1) the Foothills PCA and (2) the Baylands PCA. The proposed PCAs are publicly-owned and City designated open space lands. The proposed Foothills PCA is approximately 5,260 acres. The proposed Baylands PCA is approximately 2,629 acres. Attachment B displays the boundaries of the proposed Baylands PCA. The Baylands stretch east of Highway 101 and East Bayshore Road between the southern City boundary and San Francisquito Creek. Attachment C displays the Foothills, located west of Highway 280. Similar to the PDAs, these areas have already been identified for preservation as natural open spaces. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identified each area in Policy N-1.1, which is to “preserve, protect, and enhance public and private open space and ecosystems of Palo Alto from the Foothills to the Baylands.” Similarly, in Policy N-1.10, Program, N1.10.1, the program recommends using City funds and suggests seeking “additional sources of funding, including State and federal programs, to finance open space acquisition, maintenance, or conservation.” The PCA designation under Plan Bay Area would allow the designated areas in the Baylands and Foothills to become eligible for conservation funding, which can include funding to study and address the possible impacts of sea level rise and preservation of open space. PPA Not Proposed 6 Packet Pg. 48 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 Currently, the City does not recommend designating any areas as Priority Production Areas. In order to designate an area as a PPA, the City would need to identify and zone the area for industrial use. There would to be a high concentration of industrial activities such as production, advanced manufacturing, distribution or related activities. The PPA is also intended to link middle-wage job growth close to affordable housing. The areas zoned for industrial use (ROLM) in the City do not have surrounding areas zoned for residential development. Next Steps Designation The City Council is tentatively scheduled to review and act on the proposed PDA and PCAs in December. Designation of these areas would confirm policies and programs outlined in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. As explained in Plan Bay Area, PDAs and PCAs are complementary. Promoting compact development in a designated urban area connected to high-quality transportation services allows less development pressure on the region’s natural open space and agricultural lands, enabling preservation of these areas. Regional and State funding has previously been allocated to projects that demonstrated alignment with regional and/or State priorities. Increasingly, the MTC has used Plan Bay Area to inform short-term and long-term transportation investment priorities. The MTC’s previous report of the Plan Bay Area 2040 Investment Strategy provided metrics to identify investment principles. These principles included funding transit efficiency and expansion projects in PDAs. Over six years, the MTC has provided over $630 million towards planning and infrastructure projects in PDAs. The MTC suggests increasing funding towards these areas by 5%. On Commitments These are voluntary designations, and do not take precedence over local control. Under Government Code 65080 (b)(2)(j), a sustainable communities strategy (Plan Bay Area) does not supersede land use authority to cities nor does it require the city land use policies and regulations including the comprehensive plan to be consistent with Plan Bay Area. In fact, jurisdictions may ‘un-designate’ these PDAs and PCAs at any point. There are no requirements to amend the City’s policies, code, or Comprehensive Plan. Staff has initiated the process to designate the PDA and PCAs by sending a Letter of Interest regarding the City’s effort to explore the idea of designating the three areas. A resolution and approval by City Council is planned for December 16, 2019. A Resolution and Letter of Confirmation of the nominations will be due to the MTC by January 16, 2020. Therefore, staff requests the Planning and Transportation Commission provide feedback to City Council for its consideration of designating the new PDA and PCAs. Environmental Review In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this subject is not a project. 6 Packet Pg. 49 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Hang Huynh, Senior Planner Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director (650) 329-2493 (650) 329-2167 Hang.Huynh@cityofpaloalto.org rachael.tanner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Map of Proposed University/Downtown PDA (Including Existing CalAve PDA) (PDF) • Attachment B: Proposed PCA in the Baylands (PDF) • Attachment C: Proposed PCA in Foothills (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 6 Packet Pg. 50 Downtown ParkingAssessmentDistrict Downtown/University Ave(Proposed PDA) California Ave PDA(Existing) StanfordUniversity Menlo Park a s d J u n i p e r o S e r r E l C a m i O r e g o n Ex pr e s s w a y M i d d l e f i U niversit y A v e n A l m a S t r e e t El Camino Real S a n d H ill R o a d E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Matadero Creek Lagunita Lake Creek San F r a n c i s q u i t o Creek Francisquito Creek This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Half Mile Radius from Caltrain Stations Proposed Downtown/Univ Ave Priority Dev Area (PDA) California Avenue PDA (Existing) Marguerite Stops 22/522 VTA Stops Caltrain Stations City Jurisdictional Limits 0'1500' DR A F T Pr i o r i t y D e v e l o p m e n t A r e a ( P D A ) Ex i s t i n g a n d P r o p o s e d CITY O F PALO A L TO IN 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, 2019-09-14 17:17:55PDA PTOD HOS PCA CALAVE DOWNTOWN 2019SEP (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 6.a Packet Pg. 51 Baylands PCA(Proposed) East Palo Alto O r e g o n E x pr e s s wa y M i d d l e f i e l A v e n u e y s h o r e F r e e w a y 1 0 1 A l m a S t University Av E a st B a y s h o re W e st B a y s h o re E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d San Fra M o u n t a i n V i e w S l o u g h C h a r l e s t o n S l o u g h E m i l y R e n z e l W e t l a n d s H o o k s P o i n t H o o k s I s l a n d S a n d P o i n t H a r r i e t M u n d y M a r s h A d o b e C r e e k S a n F a b e r L a u m e i s t e r T r a c t D u c k P o n d Coast Casey Forebay S h o r e l i n e L a k e W h i s m a n S l o u g h D r y C r e e k Francisquito Creek S a n F r a n c i s This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Half Mile Radius from Caltrain Stations Proposed Priority Conservation Area (PCA) Marguerite Stops City Jurisdictional Limits 0'1500' DR A F T Pr o p o s e d B a y l a n d s P r i o r i t y C o n s e r v a t i o n A r e a ( P C A ) CITY O F PALO A L TO IN 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, 2019-09-14 17:33:41PCA Baylands 2019SEP (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 6.b Packet Pg. 52 Foothills PCA (Proposed) Los Altos Hills Santa Clara County ateo County Portola Valley 2 B o u l e v a r d P a A r a s t r a d er o R o a d M o n t e B e l l o R o a d Moody Road A l t a m o n t R o a d A l p i n e s s w H i g h w a y 2 8 0 Los Trancos Road Road MillPage Skyline Felt Lake Arastradero Lake Boronda Lake Boronda Lake D ry Cre e kDeer Creek Adobe Creek Adobe QuarryLakes L os Trancos Cree k Arastradero Lake Felt Lake Sobey Pond Foothills Park Los Trancos Open Space Preserve Monte Bello Open Space Preserve Upper Stevens Creek Canyon County Park Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve Long Ridge Open Space Preserve Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve Coal Creek Open Space Preserve Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve Foothill Open Space Preserve Arastradero Preserve Esther Clark Park This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Proposed Priority Conservation Area (PCA) City Jurisdictional Limits 0'2750' DRAFT Proposed Foothills Priority Conservation Area (PCA) CITY O F PALO A L TO IN 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, 2019-09-14 17:43:26PCA Foothills 2019SEP (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 6.c Packet Pg. 53